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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 13 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3 – 14, 16, 18 – 20, 22, 31 – 33, and 43 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3 – 14, 16, 18, 19, 31 – 33, and 43 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 claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 is directed to a seam tape, component material, or accessory material for an inflatable safety products comprising, in relevant part, an outermost metal layer, wherein “the outermost metal layer is continuous or discontinuous based on the substrate material, wherein the outermost metal layer is discontinuous for substrates formed of materials having melting points above 180 °C, and wherein the outermost metal layer is continuous for substrates formed of materials having melting points below 180 °C” (last four lines of the claim).
While the specification discusses continuous and discontinuous outermost metal layers (“completely” is also used to describe the metallic layers: e.g. ¶¶ [0038], [0058], [0060], [0061]), the instant specification does not discuss selection of a continuous or discontinuous outermost metal layer based on a melting point of the substrate, much less the endpoint of 180 °C recited for both species of outermost metal layer. Moreover, the 180 °C endpoint (or a conversion such as 356 °F) is not discussed in any context within the instant specification.
Accordingly, claim 1 is 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.
Regarding claims 3 – 14, 16, 18, 19, 31 – 33, and 43, each of claims 3 – 14, 16, 18, 19, 31 – 33, and 43 depends, directly or indirectly, on claim 1. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. Accordingly, each of claims 3 – 14, 16, 18, 19, 31 – 33, and 43 is 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liggett (US 2009/0220726 A1) in view of Bullock (US 2016/0046795 A1), Duggal (US 2017/0174298 A1), Higuchi (EP 0,042,582 A1), and Mazany (US 2014/0134355 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Liggett discloses a seam tape, component material, or accessory material for an inflatable product, the seam tape, component material, or accessory material (“seam cover tape” for “inflated structures” where the “inflated structure” comprises “flexible laminate hull materials” which may be “fabric panels”, e.g. “seam cover tape” 20a: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0001], [0008] – [0038]) comprising:
a substrate of a flexible composite, the substrate comprising a first side and a second side (the flexible composite at least comprising “second layer” and “third layer”, e.g. “at least one highly reflective metal-coated polyimide layer” 32, “at least one polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) layer” 34, 36 or component layer thereof: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0009], [0010], [0021], [0023], [0024], [0030], [0031]); and
an adhesive, the adhesive having a first side and a second side, wherein the adhesive is an outermost layer of the seam tape, component material, or accessory material on the first side, wherein the adhesive is configured to adhere the seam tape, component material, or accessory material to a fabric or flexible composite material of the inflatable product (“adhesive layer”, e.g. “adhesive layer” 30: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0021] – [0023], [0028], [0029]),
wherein the seam tape, component material, or accessory material of the inflatable safety product comprises an emissivity value of less than 0.5 (the “seam cover tape” “reflect[s] most of the incident solar radiation” or is “highly reflective of solar radiation”: e.g. ¶¶ [0006], [0009], [0010], [0021]; ¶ [0019] discloses properties of the “seam cover tape” and the “flexible laminate hull materials” of the “inflatable product” should be similar, and thus Liggett’s disclosure of reflective properties similarly applies; emissivity is described in terms of reflection in ¶¶ [0033] and [0053] of the instant specification whereby Liggett’s descriptions of reflection would be understood per the cited range);
an outside coating on the second side of the substrate opposite from the adhesive, wherein the outside coating is an outermost layer of the seam tape, component material, or accessory material on the second side (“at least one first polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) layer” 34 or “at least one second PVDF layer” 36: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0021], [0023] – [0025], [0031]);
a first film layer in contact with the second side of the adhesive and positioned on the first side of the substrate (“at least one highly reflective metal-coated polyimide layer” 32: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0021], [0023], [0030], [0031]);
a first adhesive layer positioned between the substrate and the first film layer (“intervening adhesive layers”: e.g. ¶ [0032]);
a second film layer in contact with a first metal layer and positioned on the second side of the substrate (another “at least one polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) layer” 34 or “at least one second PVDF layer” 36: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0009], [0010], [0021], [0023], [0024], [0030], [0031]); and
a second adhesive layer positioned between the substrate and the second film layer (“intervening adhesive layers”: e.g. ¶ [0032]); and
the first metal layer that is positioned on the second film layer opposite from the adhesive, wherein the monolithic metal layer is between the outside coating and the substrate (“coating” of another “metal-coated polyimide layer” 32 which is, e.g., “vacuum deposited aluminum or silver”: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0021] – [0023], [0025], [0031]), and
a second metal layer, wherein the second metal layer is an inner layer positioned between the epoxy adhesive and the substrate (a “coating” of yet another “metal-coated polyimide layer” 32 which is, e.g., “vacuum deposited aluminum or silver”: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0021] – [0023], [0025], [0031]).
The claimed recitation of a component material or an accessory material does not convey structure to the claimed product. Accordingly, Liggett’s “seam cover tape” is observed to meet the claim recitations for each of a seam tape, a component material, and an accessory material. The examiner finds this consistent with the instant specification in light of at least Liggett’s disclosure wherein the “seam cover tape” can be used as a patch (e.g. ¶ [0017]), where patches are considered component materials or accessory materials in the instant specification (e.g. ¶¶ [0042], [0141]).
For the sake of clarity, Liggett is noted for stating there is “at least one polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) layer” 34 and “at least one highly reflective metal-coated polyimide layer” 32 (e.g. ¶¶ [0021], [0023]). Accordingly, when more than one of either is present, these recitations can reasonably read upon the claimed invention.
To this end, as an example of the understanding, a first “metal-coated polyimide layer” 32 closer to the “adhesive layer” 30 than other “metal-coated polyimide layers” 32 as Liggett discloses provides the second metal layer as claimed. A first overlying “metal-coated polyimide layer” 32 thus provides the substrate as claimed, and a second overlying “metal-coated polyimide layer” 32 provides the first metal layer as claimed. The “intervening adhesives layers” thus provide the claimed adhesive, and the “at least one first polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) layer” 34 or “at least one second PVDF layer” 36 provide the claimed outside coating.
Although Liggett does not specifically state the seam tape, component material, or accessory material is for an inflatable safety product, as noted previously, this is a statement of intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the seam tape, component material, or accessory material can be used in an inflatable safety product.
However, to this end, Liggett generally discloses the seam tape, component material, or accessory material is used with “inflated structures” (e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0008], [0015], [0016], [0018]). Although Liggett does not explicitly state said “inflated structures” are “safety” products as required of claim 20, the examiner observes the term “safety” does not impart structure to the claim and therefore does not limit claim 20. However, for convenience reference hereafter, Liggett’s inflatable products will be referred to as inflatable safety products.
Although Liggett is not explicit as to the seam tape, component material, or accessory material comprising (I) the substrate of a flexible composite or fabric material, the substrate comprising a first side and a second side, wherein the substrate comprises polyamide or polyethylene, (II) the adhesive being an epoxy adhesive which is curable simultaneously on the first film layer and on the fabric or flexible composite material via heating the epoxy adhesive, (III) the inflatable safety product (for which the seam tape, component material, or accessory material is for) comprising an inflatable evacuation slide, inflatable evacuation slide/raft, inflatable evacuation ramp, inflatable evacuation slide/ramp, inflatable life raft, inflatable helicopter float, or inflatable life vest, (IV) the first adhesive layer being cured to physically couple the first film layer and the substrate, and (V) the second adhesive layer is cured to physically coupled the second film layer and the substrate, these features would have been obvious in view of Bullock, Duggal, Higuchi, and Mazany.
With respect to (I), MPEP § 2143, I, A, states the following regarding combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results:
To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference;
(2) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). "[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to (1), as noted previously, Liggett discloses a multi-layer flexible composite comprising, e.g., a polyvinylidene fluoride layer (e.g. ¶¶ [0021], [0023], [0031]), but does not explicitly state a multi-layer flexible composite having a substrate comprising polyamide or polyethylene. Bullock identifies polyethylene, e.g. in a fabric of fibers, as an equivalent material to polyvinylidene fluoride as a material for forming substrates in inflatable products (e.g. ¶ [0013]).
With respect to (2), Liggett allows the multi-layer flexible composite to comprise more layers than those depicted (e.g. ¶¶ [0021], [0023]), thus permitting the inclusion of layers which can alternatively be considered a substrate. Additionally, Bullock identifies multi-layer flexible composites or fabric materials comprising a substrate (e.g. Fig. 1; ¶ [0013]). Accordingly, Liggett and Bullock provide a means to combine polyvinylidene fluoride and polyethylene in a manner where both the polyvinylidene fluoride and polyethylene structurally contribute to the substrate of the inflatable product.
With respect to (3), Duggal notes polyethylene, e.g. as a fabric of fibers, has an advantage in terms of tensile strength which is useful for inflatable safety products as the weight can be reduced without losing strength (e.g. ¶¶ [0034] – [0038]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have observed a predictable result in adding polyethylene to the multi-layer flexible composite Liggett discloses, namely an increase on tensile strength.
With respect to (4), Liggett discloses the seam tape, component material, or accessory material should be “designed in such a manner to match and/or mirror the performance and/or appearance” of the inflatable safety product (e.g. ¶ [0019]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have observed a seam tape, component material, or accessory material made of the same material as the remainder of the inflatable safety product, or at least a material similar thereto, would exhibit the best matching and/or mirroring of performance and/or appearance. Thus, while the discussion in (1) – (3) relates to the substrate of the inflatable safety product, Liggett’s discussion of matching and/or mirroring performance would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the seam tape, component material, or accessory material with similar features.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Liggett’s multi-layer flexible composite to comprise a substrate polyethylene as Bullock and Duggal suggest, the motivation being to increase the tensile strength of the seam tape, component material, or accessory material.
With respect to (II), MPEP § 2143, I, B, states the following regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results:
To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to (1), as noted above, Liggett discloses a seam tape, component material, or accessory material but is not explicit as to the adhesive being an epoxy adhesive.
With respect to (2), Liggett discloses the adhesive closes gaps at a seam line between adjacent panels in an inflatable product functions and therefore reduces and/or eliminates gas leakage thereat (e.g. ¶¶ [0019], [0026], [0028], [0037]). Bullock discloses epoxy adhesive serve this purpose (e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0030], especially ¶ [0022] for the disclosure of epoxy adhesive).
Higuchi discloses an inflatable raft whose parts are adhered using an epoxy adhesive curable via heating (e.g. Fig. 4 – 14; p. 2, l. 14, to p. 3, l. 7; p. 3, l. 15, to p. 8, l. 14). Given Higuchi’s inflatable raft is folded for storage and therefore requires flexibility to transition between the folded and unfolded states when an emergency requiring use of the raft arises (e.g. p. 5, ll. 9 – 12; p. 8, ll. 4 – 8), one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Higuchi’s epoxy adhesive must be compatible with these properties.
With respect to (3) and (4), Liggett discloses examples of adhesives for the purpose of closing gaps at a seam line in inflatable products (e.g. ¶¶ [0029], [0033], [0037]) but is not limited to those species recited. Additionally, Liggett’s disclosure generally applies to inflated structures which require flexibility (e.g. ¶¶ [0008], [0015], [0018], [0019]). Given the properties Higuchi requires of their epoxy adhesive, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered an epoxy adhesive with properties as Bullock and Higuchi disclose for use with Liggett’s seam tape, component material, or accessory material. Additionally, because Higuchi’s epoxy adhesive cures via heating, it follows that any adhesion between the first film layer and the target fabric or flexible composite material Liggett discloses would occur simultaneously as the heat is necessary to complete the adhesion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute Liggett’s adhesive for an epoxy adhesive which is curable simultaneously on the first film layer and on the fabric or flexible material composite material via heating the epoxy adhesive as Bullock and Higuchi suggest. The rationale for such a substitution is that said substitution yields predictable results, i.e. an alternative seam tape, component material, or accessory material with desirable reduction and/or elimination of gas leakage.
With respect to (III), as examples of an inflatable product, Liggett and Bullock relate to lighter-than-air vehicles and similar platforms, e.g. those need to reflect solar energy or otherwise manage thermal energy (Liggett: e.g. ¶¶ [0008], [0015], [0016], [0018] – [0021]; Bullock: e.g. ¶¶ [0020] – [0022], [0026], [0028]). Furthermore, Liggett and Bullock each seek to minimize unwanted leaks within the inflatable product (Liggett: e.g. ¶¶ [0019], [0021], [0024], [0027]; Bullock: e.g. ¶¶ [0022], [0028]).
Similar to Liggett and Bullock, Duggal notes inflatable safety products, e.g. inflatable evaluation slides and the like, exhibit the ability to reflect solar energy and do not leak air when inflated (e.g. ¶¶ [0003] – [0051]). Higuchi relates to similar inflatable safety products, e.g. inflatable rafts (e.g. Fig. 4 – 14; p. 2, l. 14, to p. 3, l. 7; p. 3, l. 15, to p. 8, l. 14). Given the ability of Liggett and Bullock to retain helium, which Bullock notes is the smallest gas, within an inflated structure (Liggett: e.g. ¶¶ [0018], [0021], [0030], [0031]; Bullock: e.g. ¶¶ [0012], [0020] – [0026], [0028], [0029]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood structures as Liggett and Bullock note would benefit inflatable safety products as Duggal and Higuchi disclose. That is to say, without maintaining air within the inflatable safety product, the inflatable safety products Duggal and Higuchi disclose cannot maintain their function imperative in the emergency uses such products are designed for. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to employ a seam tape as Liggett and Bullock disclose with an inflatable safety product, e.g. an inflatable evacuation slide or inflatable life raft, as Duggal and Higuchi disclose, in order to improve the air-holding ability thereof.
With respect to (IV) and (V), the examiner observes the discussion highlighted with respect to (II) above similarly applies to the first and second adhesive layers because the same properties are required in order for the seam tape, component material, or accessory material to function as required. Since Bullock and Higuchi have been previously established to provide a curable adhesive conducive to such properties, e.g. flexibility, for the same motivations discussed with respect to (III), it would have been obvious for the first adhesive layer to be cured to physically couple the first film layer and the substrate and for the second adhesive layer is cured to physically coupled the second film layer and the substrate.
Liggett’s emissivity encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 22, although Liggett is not explicit as to the emissivity being less than or equal to 0.25, as noted in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 20, Liggett desires a seam tape, component material, or accessory material which reflects most solar radiation to the point of being highly reflective in order to improve thermal management (e.g. ¶¶ [0006], [0009], [0010], [0021]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivation to determine a suitable emissivity.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide an emissivity less than or equal to 0.25 in order to enhance or ensure thermal management.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 8, filed 13 May 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 8 – 9, filed 13 May 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3 – 14, 16, 18, 19, 31 – 33, and 43 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn. No rejections are presented herein in view of prior art.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 8 – 10, filed 13 May 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts Liggett does not adequately provide for the second metal layer being an inner layer positioned between the epoxy adhesive and the substrate as required of claim 20. However, as explained in the rejection of claim 20, the examiner finds Liggett’s disclosure of at least one metal-coated polyimide layer to be descriptive of this feature.
The examiner notes claim 20, the instant specification, and Applicant’s arguments submitted 13 May 2026 do not place any particular specificity on the second metal layer being between the epoxy adhesive and the substrate. At best, ¶ [0124] of the instant specification mentions a substrate with a metallic layer covering at least one surface of the substrate. However, this does not specify whether the covering is direct or indirect. Accordingly, Liggett’s construction is considered reasonable in meeting the recitations of claim 20 for the second metal layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights