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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/20/25 has been entered.
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendment(s) filed on 11/20/25, amended claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7, and 12-15, and new claim(s) 20-23 is/are acknowledged. The following new and/or reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth:
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “direction of the first axis is indicated on the PCB,” as recited in claim 5; the “direction of the second axis is indicated on the PCB,” as recited in claim 6; the “direction of the third axis is indicated on the PCB,” as recited in claim 8; “direction of the first axis is indicated on the PCB,” as recited in claim 13; “direction of the second axis is indicated on the PCB,” as recited in claim 13; and “direction of the third axis is indicated on the PCB,” as recited in claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed 8/12/25 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: newly amended Fig. 22A with markings on the printed circuit board.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “accelerometers” (line 1) appears that it should be “accelerometer.”
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: “side the PCB” (line 2) appears that it should be “side of the PCB.”
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: “side the PCB” (line 2) appears that it should be “side of the PCB.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0212612 to Hohl et al. (hereinafter “Hohl”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,216,537 to Henschel et al. (hereinafter “Henschel”).
For claim 1, Hohl discloses a medical device (Abstract) comprising:
a housing (103) (Fig. 1) (para [0043]), comprising a first end (first end of 103) and a second end (second end of 103), wherein the first end and the second end of the housing are opposite ends of the housing (as can be seen in Fig. 1);
a printed circuit board (PCB) (“printed circuit board (PCB),” para [0053]) (also see para [0055], [0085]-[0086] and [0088]), housed in the housing (see “connector 336” in Fig. 3 and para [0088]) and extending in a direction that is from the first end to the second end of the housing (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3), comprising a planar surface (unlabeled, but as can be seen in Figs. 10B-D);
a processor (304) (Fig. 3) (para [0052]), housed in the housing (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3) (also see para [0053] and [0085]-[0086]), wherein the processor is coupled to the planar surface of the PCB (as can be seen in Fig. 3) (para [0053]) (also see para [0085]-[0086]);
a memory (312/315) (Fig. 3) (para [0052]), housed in the housing (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3) (also see para [0053] and [0085]-[0086]), wherein the memory is coupled to the planar surface of the PCB and is coupled to the processor (as can be seen in Fig. 3) (para [0053]) (also see para [0085]-[0086]);
a display (307) (Fig. 3) (para [0052]), housed in the housing (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3) (also see para [0053] and [0085]-[0086]), wherein the display is coupled to the processor (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3) (also see para [0053] and [0085]-[0086]), is visible from an exterior of the housing (as can be seen in Fig. 7) and is located at the first end of the housing (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3) (also see para [0053] and [0085]-[0086]);
a sensor head (338) (Fig. 7) (para [0054]), housed in the housing (as can be seen in Fig. 7), wherein the sensor head is located at the second end of the housing (as can be seen in Fig. 7); and
a first accelerometer (“one or more accelerometers,” para [0064]) (as can be seen in Fig. 3, the accelerometer being part of element 319), housed in the housing (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3) (also see para [0053] and [0085]-[0086]), wherein the first accelerometer is coupled to the processor (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3) (also see para [0053] and [0085]-[0086]),
the first accelerometer comprises a first axis about which a first detection of a first acceleration direction is detectable (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) with respect to a direction for an acceleration of gravity vector (para [0065]) (Examiner’s Note: this is going to depend on the orientation of the device relative to gravity) (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]), such that the first accelerometer can (Examiner’s Note: i.e., capable of) detect rotation of the first and second ends of the housing with respect to the direction of the acceleration-of-gravity vector when the first axis is at non-zero angle with respect to the direction of the acceleration-of-gravity vector (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]).
Hohl does not expressly disclose wherein the first accelerometer is coupled to the planar surface of the PCB and that the first axis is perpendicular to the planar surface of the PCB that the first accelerometer is coupled to.
However, Henschel teaches wherein a first accelerometer is coupled to a planar surface of a PCB (as can be seen in Fig. 3) and that a first axis is perpendicular to the planar surface of the PCB that the first accelerometer is coupled to (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl wherein the first accelerometer is coupled to the planar surface of the PCB and that the first axis is perpendicular to the planar surface of the PCB that the first accelerometer is coupled to, in view of the teachings of Henschel, for the obvious advantage of fixing the accelerometer and PCB together so that movement of the accelerometer can be calibrated to movement of the PCB, so that no transforms need to be performed to get an accurate determination of movements/gestures by the user, which is what Hohl wants to do (see para [0065]-[0067] of Hohl).
For claim 2, Hohl further discloses wherein the first accelerometer comprises a second axis about which a second detection of a second acceleration direction is detectable (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) with respect to a direction for the acceleration of gravity (para [0065]), and the second axis extends through the first end and the second end of the housing (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]).
For claim 3, Hohl further discloses wherein the second axis extends through the first end and the second end of the housing, such that (Examiner’s Note: intended use, i.e., capable of) the first accelerometer can detect rotation of the first and second ends of the housing with respect to the direction of the acceleration-of-gravity vector when the second axis is at non-zero angle with respect to the direction (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]).
For claim 4, Hohl, as modified, further discloses wherein the second axis is parallel to the planar surface of the PCB that the first accelerometer is coupled to (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]).
For claim 7, Hohl, as modified, further discloses wherein the first accelerometer comprises a third axis for a third detection of a third acceleration direction (para [0065]), and the third axis extends parallel to the planar surface of the PCB that the first accelerometer is coupled to (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]).
For claim 9, Hohl further discloses wherein the first accelerometers is not located at a center of the PCB (para [0064], the accelerometer being part of element 319, which may include element 307, which is shown at one side of the housing in Fig. 7).
For claim 10, Hohl further discloses wherein the first accelerometer is located closer to a side of the housing than to a center of the housing (para [0064], the accelerometer being part of element 319, which may include element 307, which is shown at one side of the housing in Fig. 7).
For claim 11, Hohl further discloses wherein the first accelerometer is located closer to the display than to the sensor head (para [0064]).
For claim 12, Hohl, as modified, further discloses a second accelerometer (332) (Fig. 3) (para [0070]), housed in the housing (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3) (para [0052]), wherein the second accelerometer is coupled to the planar surface of the PCB and is coupled to the processor (as can be seen in Fig. 3) (also see para [0053] and [0085]-[0086]), the second accelerometer comprises a second axis for (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) a second detection of a second acceleration direction with respect to a direction for the acceleration of gravity (para [0065]), and the second axis is parallel to the planar surface of the PCB that the second accelerometer is coupled to (Examiner’s Note: this is going to depend on the orientation of the device relative to gravity) (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]), such that the second accelerometer can (Examiner’s Note: i.e., capable of) detect rotation of the first and second ends of the housing with respect to the direction of the acceleration-of-gravity vector when the second axis is at non-zero angle with respect to the direction (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]).
Claim(s) 5-6, 8, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hohl in view of Henschel, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0214051 to Larson et al. (hereinafter “Larson”).
For claim 5, Hohl does not expressly disclose wherein a direction of the first axis is indicated on the PCB.
However, Larson teaches that “to aid in orienting the sensor with respect to the patient, in some embodiments the sensor can have indicia to allow for proper placement on the patient. In particular, the housing unit, which houses the accelerometer, can provide a surface for the desired indicia which can be as a mark, arrow, or icon indicating proper orientation” (para [0148]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl wherein a direction of the first axis is indicated on the PCB, in view of the teachings of Larson, for the obvious advantage of providing a proper orientation of the accelerometer relative to the patient.
For claim 6, Hohl does not expressly disclose wherein a direction of the second axis is indicated on the PCB.
However, Larson teaches that “to aid in orienting the sensor with respect to the patient, in some embodiments the sensor can have indicia to allow for proper placement on the patient. In particular, the housing unit, which houses the accelerometer, can provide a surface for the desired indicia which can be as a mark, arrow, or icon indicating proper orientation” (para [0148]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl wherein a direction of the second axis is indicated on the PCB, in view of the teachings of Larson, for the obvious advantage of providing a proper orientation of the accelerometer relative to the patient.
For claim 8, Hohl does not expressly disclose wherein a direction of the third axis is indicated on the PCB.
However, Larson teaches that “to aid in orienting the sensor with respect to the patient, in some embodiments the sensor can have indicia to allow for proper placement on the patient. In particular, the housing unit, which houses the accelerometer, can provide a surface for the desired indicia which can be as a mark, arrow, or icon indicating proper orientation” (para [0148]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl wherein a direction of the third axis is indicated on the PCB, in view of the teachings of Larson, for the obvious advantage of providing a proper orientation of the accelerometer relative to the patient.
For claim 13, Hohl discloses a medical device (Abstract) comprising:
a housing (103) (Fig. 1) (para [0043]), comprising a first end (first end of 103) and a second end (second end of 103), wherein the first end and the second end of the housing are opposite ends of the housing (as can be seen in Fig. 1);
a printed circuit board (PCB) (“printed circuit board (PCB),” para [0053]) (also see para [0055], [0085]-[0086] and [0088]), housed in the housing (see “connector 336” in Fig. 3 and para [0088]) and extending in a direction that is from the first end to the second end of the housing (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3), comprising a planar surface (unlabeled, but as can be seen in Figs. 10B-D);
a processor (304) (Fig. 3) (para [0052]), housed in the housing (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3) (also see para [0053] and [0085]-[0086]), wherein the processor is coupled to the planar surface of the PCB (as can be seen in Fig. 3) (para [0053]) (also see para [0085]-[0086]);
a memory (312/315) (Fig. 3) (para [0052]), housed in the housing (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3) (also see para [0053] and [0085]-[0086]), wherein the memory is coupled to the planar surface of the PCB and is coupled to the processor (as can be seen in Fig. 3) (para [0053]) (also see para [0085]-[0086]);
a display (307) (Fig. 3) (para [0052]), housed in the housing (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3) (also see para [0053] and [0085]-[0086]), wherein the display is coupled to the processor (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3) (also see para [0053] and [0085]-[0086]), is visible from an exterior of the housing (as can be seen in Fig. 7) and is located at the first end of the housing (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3) (also see para [0053] and [0085]-[0086]);
a sensor head (338) (Fig. 7) (para [0054]), housed in the housing (as can be seen in Fig. 7), wherein the sensor head is located at the second end of the housing (as can be seen in Fig. 7); and
an accelerometer (“one or more accelerometers,” para [0064]) (as can be seen in Fig. 3, the accelerometer being part of element 319), housed in the housing (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3) (also see para [0053] and [0085]-[0086]) closer to a side of the housing than to a center of the housing (para [0064], the accelerometer being part of element 319, which may include element 307, which is shown at one side of the housing in Fig. 7) and located closer to the display than to the sensor head (para [0064]), wherein the accelerometer is located on the PCB and is coupled to the processor (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3) (also see para [0053] and [0085]-[0086]),
the accelerometer comprises a first axis about which a first detection of a first acceleration direction is detectable (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) with respect to a direction for the acceleration of gravity (para [0065]),
the first axis is perpendicular to a surface of the PCB that the accelerometer is located on (Examiner’s Note: this is going to depend on the orientation of the device relative to gravity) (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]), such that the accelerometer can (Examiner’s Note: i.e., capable of) detect rotation of the first and second ends of the housing with respect to the direction of an acceleration-of-gravity vector when the first axis is at non-zero angle with respect to the direction of the acceleration-of-gravity vector (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]), and
the accelerometer comprises a second axis for (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) a second detection of a second acceleration direction with respect to a direction for the acceleration of gravity (para [0065]), and the second axis extends parallel to an axis that extends through the first end and the second end of the housing (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]).
Hohl does not expressly disclose wherein the first accelerometer is coupled to the planar surface of the PCB and that the first axis is perpendicular to the planar surface of the PCB that the first accelerometer is coupled to.
However, Henschel teaches wherein a first accelerometer is coupled to a planar surface of a PCB (as can be seen in Fig. 3) and that a first axis is perpendicular to the planar surface of the PCB that the first accelerometer is coupled to (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl wherein the first accelerometer is coupled to the planar surface of the PCB and that the first axis is perpendicular to the planar surface of the PCB that the first accelerometer is coupled to, in view of the teachings of Henschel, for the obvious advantage of fixing the accelerometer and PCB together so that movement of the accelerometer can be calibrated to movement of the PCB, so that no transforms need to be performed to get an accurate determination of movements/gestures by the user, which is what Hohl wants to do (see para [0065]-[0067] of Hohl).
Hohl and does not expressly disclose a direction of the first axis is indicated on the PCB and a direction of the second axis is indicated on the PCB.
However, Larson teaches that “to aid in orienting the sensor with respect to the patient, in some embodiments the sensor can have indicia to allow for proper placement on the patient. In particular, the housing unit, which houses the accelerometer, can provide a surface for the desired indicia which can be as a mark, arrow, or icon indicating proper orientation” (para [0148]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl such that a direction of the first axis is indicated on the PCB and a direction of the second axis is indicated on the PCB, in view of the teachings of Larson, for the obvious advantage of providing a proper orientation of the accelerometer relative to the patient.
For claim 14, Hohl, as modified, further discloses wherein the second axis is parallel to the planar surface of the PCB that the accelerometer is coupled to (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]).
For claim 15, Hohl, as modified, further discloses wherein the accelerometer comprises a third axis for a third detection of a third acceleration direction (para [0065]), and the third axis extends parallel to the planar surface of the PCB that the accelerometer is coupled to (para [0064]-[0067] and [0069]).
For claim 16, Hohl does not expressly disclose wherein a direction of the third axis is indicated on the PCB.
However, Larson teaches that “to aid in orienting the sensor with respect to the patient, in some embodiments the sensor can have indicia to allow for proper placement on the patient. In particular, the housing unit, which houses the accelerometer, can provide a surface for the desired indicia which can be as a mark, arrow, or icon indicating proper orientation” (para [0148]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl wherein a direction of the third axis is indicated on the PCB, in view of the teachings of Larson, for the obvious advantage of providing a proper orientation of the accelerometer relative to the patient.
Claim(s) 17-19 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hohl in view of Henschel and Larson, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0347899 to Bhushan et al. (hereinafter “Bhushan”).
For claim 17, Hohl, Henschel, and Larson do not expressly disclose wherein the accelerometer is not located at a center of the PCB.
However, Bhushan teaches wherein the accelerometer is not located at a center of the PCB (as can be seen in Fig. 2) (also see para [0099]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl wherein the accelerometer is not located at a center of the PCB, in view of the teachings of Bhushan, because such an arrangement of parts is a suitable arrangement of the different components that would lead to the predictable result of being able to sense the acceleration of the PCB.
For claim 18, Hohl, Henschel, and Larson do not expressly disclose wherein the accelerometer is located closer to a side of the housing than to a center of the housing.
However, Bhushan teaches wherein the accelerometer is located closer to a side of the housing than to a center of the housing (as can be seen in Fig. 2) (also see para [0099]) (also see “casing” in para [0027]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl wherein the accelerometer is located closer to a side of the housing than to a center of the housing, in view of the teachings of Bhushan, because such an arrangement of parts is a suitable arrangement of the different components that would lead to the predictable result of being able to sense the acceleration of the PCB.
For claim 19, Hohl further discloses wherein the accelerometer is located closer to the display than to the sensor head (para [0064]).
For claim 22, Hohl, Henschel, and Larson do not expressly disclose wherein the accelerometer is not located at a center of the PCB.
However, Bhushan teaches wherein the accelerometer is not located at a center of the PCB (as can be seen in Fig. 2) (also see para [0099]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl wherein the accelerometer is not located at a center of the PCB, in view of the teachings of Bhushan, because such an arrangement of parts is a suitable arrangement of the different components that would lead to the predictable result of being able to sense the acceleration of the PCB.
For claim 23, Hohl, Henschel, and Larson do not expressly disclose wherein the first accelerometer is coupled to the PCB nearer to a side of the PCB than a center of the PCB.
However, Bhushan teaches wherein the first accelerometer is coupled to the PCB nearer to a side of the PCB than a center of the PCB (as can be seen in Fig. 2) (also see para [0099]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl wherein the first accelerometer is coupled to the PCB nearer to a side of the PCB than a center of the PCB, in view of the teachings of Bhushan, because such an arrangement of parts is a suitable arrangement of the different components that would lead to the predictable result of being able to sense the acceleration of the PCB.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hohl in view of Henschel, and further in view of Bhushan.
For claim 20, Hohl and Henschel do not expressly disclose wherein the accelerometer is not located at a center of the PCB.
However, Bhushan teaches wherein the accelerometer is not located at a center of the PCB (as can be seen in Fig. 2) (also see para [0099]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl wherein the accelerometer is not located at a center of the PCB, in view of the teachings of Bhushan, because such an arrangement of parts is a suitable arrangement of the different components that would lead to the predictable result of being able to sense the acceleration of the PCB.
For claim 21, Hohl and Henschel do not expressly disclose wherein the first accelerometer is coupled to the PCB nearer to a side of the PCB than a center of the PCB.
However, Bhushan teaches wherein the first accelerometer is coupled to the PCB nearer to a side of the PCB than a center of the PCB (as can be seen in Fig. 2) (also see para [0099]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Hohl wherein the first accelerometer is coupled to the PCB nearer to a side of the PCB than a center of the PCB, in view of the teachings of Bhushan, because such an arrangement of parts is a suitable arrangement of the different components that would lead to the predictable result of being able to sense the acceleration of the PCB.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not address the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments presented in the response filed 11/20/25.
With respect to the drawings, the examiner cannot tell whether the newly amended drawings are introducing a new marking on the PCB or whether the amendment is supposed to be imaginary giving a reference for a coordinate frame for the drawing. The examiner has issued an objection to the drawings and an objection to the specification to cover either scenario.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791