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 .
Response to Amendment
An amendment responsive to the non-final Office Action dated August 22, 2025 was submitted on November 24, 2025. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 15-20 were previously canceled. Claims 1-14 and 21-26 are currently pending.
The amendments to claim 1 have overcome the prior art rejections of claims 1-14 and 21 (¶¶ 8-40 of the Office Action). These rejections have therefore been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection of these claims have been made as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-4, 6-14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newcomb et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0232903 A1, cited in IDS submitted July 5, 2024) in view of Stokes (“Vibration Welding of Thermoplastics. Part I: Phenomenology of the Welding Process”, Poly. Eng. Sci., Vol. 20, No. 11, pp. 718-727, June 1988, cited in previous Office Action) and Junker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0084539 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Newcomb discloses a method for joining thermoplastic composite parts (FIG. 9E, [0097] of Newcomb, first component #36 joined to second component #38; [0005] of Newcomb, first and second components include first and second polymers, respectively, and a plurality of reinforcing fibers; [0012] of Newcomb, first and second polymers are thermoplastic), comprising: providing a first part having at least one first joining surface disposed in a first plane and at least one second joining surface disposed in a second plane that is non-parallel to the first plane, the first part comprising a first thermoplastic composite material (FIG. 9E, [0065] of Newcomb, first component #36 comprising a corrugated interface surface having a top walls and angled side walls); providing a second part having at least one third joining surface disposed in the first plane and at least one fourth joining surface disposed in the second plane, the second part comprising a second thermoplastic composite material (FIG. 9E of Newcomb, second component #38 having an interface surfaces complementary to that of the first component #36).
Newcomb does not specifically disclose disposing the first part relative to the second part so that the at least one first joining surface and the at least one third joining surface are in contact with one another, and the at least one second joining surface and the at least one fourth joining surface are in contact with one another; forcing the at least one second joining surface and the at least one fourth joining surface against one another; and welding the at least one first joining surface and the at least one third joining surface together using a vibration welding process that includes subjecting one of the first part or the second part to oscillatory motion; wherein the oscillatory motion and the forcing of the at least one second joining surface and the at least one fourth joining surface against one another causes the at least one second joining surface and the at least one fourth joining surface to be welded. Newcomb, however, discloses joining the first and second components by vibration welding ([0098] of Newcomb). As set forth in Stokes, vibration welding of thermoplastics involves rubbing the surfaces to be joined together under pressure in an oscillatory manner (¶ spanning pp. 718-719 of Stokes). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rub the surfaces of the first and second component to be joined together under pressure in an oscillatory manner as taught by Stokes (¶ spanning pp. 718-719 of Stokes). One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to cause the interfacial material to heat and melt thereby effecting welding at the interface between the components as taught by Stokes (¶ spanning pp. 718-719 of Stokes).
Neither Newcomb nor Stokes specifically disclose that the other of the first part or the second part remains stationary. Junker, however, discloses joining the first and second plastic components by vibration welding ([0002] of Junker). As set forth in Junker, the vibration welding machine has an oscillating tool for holding one of the parts and a stationary tool for holding the other of the parts ([0002] of Junker). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to hold stationary one of the parts in the modified method since Junker establishes that it was known to do so in the vibration welding of plastic parts. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, 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 (MPEP § 2143 I A). 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. In addition, 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. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, neither Newcomb nor Stokes specifically disclose that the forcing of the at least one second joining surface and the at least one fourth joining surface against one another includes placing the first part and the second part in an interference fit relative to one another. However, forcing the components together under pressure as suggested by Stokes would necessarily place the parts in an interference fit. Moreover, forcing the angled interface surfaces together as suggested by Stokes would necessarily create friction and a tight or interference fit between these surfaces.
Regarding claim 3, neither Newcomb nor Stokes specifically disclose that the at least one second joining surface is biased against the at least one fourth joining surface. These surfaces, however, would necessarily be biased against one another in the modified process. Moreover, rubbing the surfaces of the components together under pressure would necessarily bias both the horizontal and the angled surfaces on the joining interface together.
Regarding claim 4, neither Newcomb nor Stokes specifically disclose that the first plane and the second plane are disposed in the range of seventy to one hundred and ten degrees relative to one another. Newcomb, however, discloses that a perpendicular to the horizontal plane forms an angle of 1 to 85° with respect to the second plane (i.e., that the planes are disposed at an angle of 91 to 175° to one another) (FIG. 3, [0065] of Newcomb). Newcomb therefore clearly teaches an angle range (i.e., 91-175 °) that overlaps with that recited in claim 4 (i.e., 70-110°) which would render the claimed range obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 6, Newcomb discloses that the first thermoplastic composite material is the same as the second thermoplastic composite material ([0012] of Newcomb, first and second polymers independently selected from recited thermoplastic materials; polymers can therefore be the same or different).
Regarding claim 7, Newcomb discloses that the first thermoplastic composite material is different than the second thermoplastic composite material ([0012] of Newcomb, first and second polymers independently selected from recited thermoplastic materials; polymers can therefore be the same or different).
Regarding claim 8, Newcomb discloses that at least one of the first thermoplastic composite material or the second thermoplastic composite material includes continuous fiber reinforcement ([0047] of Newcomb, reinforcing material may be continuous random fabric).
Regarding claim 9, neither Newcomb nor Stokes specifically disclose that the at least one first joining surface and the at least one third joining surface are welded concurrently with the welding of the at least one second joining surface and the at least one fourth joining surface. However, forcing the components together under pressure as suggested by Stokes would necessarily cause concurrent welding. Moreover, rubbing the complementary surfaces together would necessarily case friction heating and welding concurrently on all of the joining surfaces.
Regarding claim 10, neither Newcomb nor Stokes specifically disclose that in a single process the at least one first joining surface and the at least one third joining surface are welded, and the at least one second joining surface and the at least one fourth joining surface are welded. However, forcing the components together under pressure as suggested by Stokes would necessarily cause concurrent welding of all interface surfaces in a single process. Moreover, rubbing the complementary surfaces together would necessarily case friction heating and welding concurrently on all of the joining surfaces.
Regarding claim 11, Newcomb discloses that the first thermoplastic composite material comprises at least one of polyamide (PA), polyamide-imide (PAI), polyarylsulfone (PAS), polyethersulfone (PES), polyoxymethylene (POM), polyphenylene sulphide (PPS), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), polyetherimide (PEI), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyphthalamide (PPA), poly ether ketone ketone (PEKK), or poly aryl ether ketone (PAEK) ([0012] of Newcomb, claim only requires one of the recited polymers).
Regarding claim 12, Newcomb discloses that the second thermoplastic composite material comprises at least one of polyamide (PA), polyamide-imide (PAI), polyarylsulfone (PAS), polyethersulfone (PES), polyoxymethylene (POM), polyphenylene sulphide (PPS), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), polyetherimide (PEI), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyphthalamide (PPA), poly ether ketone ketone (PEKK), or poly aryl ether ketone (PAEK) ([0012] of Newcomb, claim only requires one of the recited polymers).
Regarding claim 13, Newcomb discloses that the first thermoplastic composite material comprises at least one of glass fibers, carbon fibers, aramid fibers, basalt fibers, mineral fibers, fibers from renewable raw materials, metal fibers or polymer fibers ([0013] of Newcomb, fibers can be carbon, glass, basalt, aramid or polyethylene fibers; claim only requires one of the recited fibers).
Regarding claim 14, Newcomb discloses that the second thermoplastic composite material comprises at least one of glass fibers, carbon fibers, aramid fibers, basalt fibers, mineral fibers, fibers from renewable raw materials, metal fibers or polymer fibers ([0013] of Newcomb, fibers can be carbon, glass, basalt, aramid or polyethylene fibers; claim only requires one of the recited fibers).
Regarding claim 21, Stokes discloses that the oscillatory motion comprises a linear motion, a back and forth motion, and/or a reciprocating motion (FIG. 1 of Stokes, oscillating motion depicted as linear and back and forth motion; claim only requires one of the recited types of motion).
Claims 1-5, 8-14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Sheyyab et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0191492 A1, cited in IDS submitted July 5, 2024) in view of Stokes and Junker.
Regarding claim 1, Al-Sheyyab discloses a method for joining thermoplastic composite parts ([0012] of Al-Sheyyab, half-shell and cover element connected to one another; [0019] of Al-Sheyyab, half-shell and cover element made from fiber reinforced thermoplastic material), comprising: providing a first part having at least one first joining surface disposed in a first plane and at least one second joining surface disposed in a second plane that is non-parallel to the first plane, the first part comprising a first thermoplastic composite material (FIG. 4 of Al-Sheyyab, half shell #1 includes joining portion #4a disposed in a first plane and joining portions #3a disposed in a second plane non-parallel to #3a); providing a second part having at least one third joining surface disposed in the first plane and at least one fourth joining surface disposed in the second plane, the second part comprising a second thermoplastic composite material (FIG. 4 of Al-Sheyyab, cover element #2 includes joining portion #4b disposed in the first plane and joining portions #3b disposed in the second plane).
Al-Sheyyab does not specifically disclose disposing the first part relative to the second part so that the at least one first joining surface and the at least one third joining surface are in contact with one another, and the at least one second joining surface and the at least one fourth joining surface are in contact with one another; forcing the at least one second joining surface and the at least one fourth joining surface against one another; and welding the at least one first joining surface and the at least one third joining surface together using a vibration welding process that includes subjecting one of the first part or the second part to oscillatory motion; wherein the oscillatory motion and the forcing of the at least one second joining surface and the at least one fourth joining surface against one another causes the at least one second joining surface and the at least one fourth joining surface to be welded. Al-Sheyyab, however, discloses joining the components together by vibration welding ([0012] of Al-Sheyyab). As set forth in Stokes, vibration welding of thermoplastics involves rubbing the surfaces to be joined together under pressure in an oscillatory manner (¶ spanning pp. 718-719 of Stokes). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rub the surfaces of the first and second component to be joined together under pressure in an oscillatory manner as taught by Stokes (¶ spanning pp. 718-719 of Stokes). One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to cause the interfacial material to heat and melt thereby effecting welding at the interface between the components as taught by Stokes (¶ spanning pp. 718-719 of Stokes).
Neither Al-Sheyyab nor Stokes specifically disclose that the other of the first part or the second part remains stationary. Junker, however, discloses joining the first and second plastic components by vibration welding ([0002] of Junker). As set forth in Junker, the vibration welding machine has an oscillating tool for holding one of the parts and a stationary tool for holding the other of the parts ([0002] of Junker). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to hold stationary one of the parts in the modified method since Junker establishes that it was known to do so in the vibration welding of plastic parts. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, 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 (MPEP § 2143 I A). 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. In addition, 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. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, neither Al-Sheyyab nor Stokes specifically disclose that the forcing of the at least one second joining surface and the at least one fourth joining surface against one another includes placing the first part and the second part in an interference fit relative to one another. However, forcing the components together under pressure as suggested by Stokes would necessarily place the parts in an interference fit. Moreover, forcing the joining portions together as suggested by Stokes would necessarily create friction and a tight or interference fit between these surfaces.
Regarding claim 3, neither Al-Sheyyab nor Stokes specifically disclose that the at least one second joining surface is biased against the at least one fourth joining surface. These surfaces, however, would necessarily be biased against one another in the modified process wherein joining portions of the components are rubbed together under pressure.
Regarding claim 4, Al-Sheyyab discloses that the first plane and the second plane are disposed in the range of seventy to one hundred and ten degrees relative to one another (FIG. 4 of Al-Sheyyab, joining portions #4a #4b oriented perpendicularly or at 90° to joining portions #3a #3b).
Regarding claim 5, Al-Sheyyab discloses that the first plane and the second plane are perpendicular (FIG. 4 of Al-Sheyyab, joining portions #4a #4b oriented perpendicularly or at 90° to joining portions #3a #3b).
Regarding claim 8, Al-Sheyyab discloses that at least one of the first thermoplastic composite material or the second thermoplastic composite material includes continuous fiber reinforcement ([0058] of Al-Sheyyab, reinforcing material may be continuous fiber reinforcement).
Regarding claim 9, neither Al-Sheyyab nor Stokes specifically disclose that the at least one first joining surface and the at least one third joining surface are welded concurrently with the welding of the at least one second joining surface and the at least one fourth joining surface. However, forcing the components together under pressure as suggested by Stokes would necessarily cause concurrent welding. Moreover, rubbing the complementary joining surfaces together would necessarily case friction heating and welding concurrently on all of the joining surfaces.
Regarding claim 10, neither Al-Sheyyab nor Stokes specifically disclose that in a single process the at least one first joining surface and the at least one third joining surface are welded, and the at least one second joining surface and the at least one fourth joining surface are welded. However, forcing the components together under pressure as suggested by Stokes would necessarily cause concurrent welding of all interface surfaces in a single process. Moreover, rubbing the complementary surfaces together would necessarily case friction heating and welding concurrently on all of the joining surfaces.
Regarding claim 11, Al-Sheyyab discloses that the first thermoplastic composite material comprises at least one of polyamide (PA), polyamide-imide (PAI), polyarylsulfone (PAS), polyethersulfone (PES), polyoxymethylene (POM), polyphenylene sulphide (PPS), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), polyetherimide (PEI), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyphthalamide (PPA), poly ether ketone ketone (PEKK), or poly aryl ether ketone (PAEK) ([0022] of Al-Sheyyab, claim only requires one of the recited polymers).
Regarding claim 12, Al-Sheyyab discloses that the second thermoplastic composite material comprises at least one of polyamide (PA), polyamide-imide (PAI), polyarylsulfone (PAS), polyethersulfone (PES), polyoxymethylene (POM), polyphenylene sulphide (PPS), polyether ether ketone (PEEK), polyetherimide (PEI), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyphthalamide (PPA), poly ether ketone ketone (PEKK), or poly aryl ether ketone (PAEK) ([0022] of Al-Sheyyab, claim only requires one of the recited polymers).
Regarding claim 13, Al-Sheyyab discloses that the first thermoplastic composite material comprises at least one of glass fibers, carbon fibers, aramid fibers, basalt fibers, mineral fibers, fibers from renewable raw materials, metal fibers or polymer fibers ([0058] of Al-Sheyyab, fibers can be glass fibers, carbon fibers, aramid fibers, basalt fibers, mineral fibers, fibers from renewable raw materials, metal fibers or polymer fibers; claim only requires one of the recited fibers).
Regarding claim 14, Al-Sheyyab discloses that the second thermoplastic composite material comprises at least one of glass fibers, carbon fibers, aramid fibers, basalt fibers, mineral fibers, fibers from renewable raw materials, metal fibers or polymer fibers ([0058] of Al-Sheyyab, fibers can be glass fibers, carbon fibers, aramid fibers, basalt fibers, mineral fibers, fibers from renewable raw materials, metal fibers or polymer fibers; claim only requires one of the recited fibers).
Regarding claim 21, Stokes discloses that the oscillatory motion comprises a linear motion, a back and forth motion, and/or a reciprocating motion (FIG. 1 of Stokes, oscillating motion depicted as linear and back and forth motion; claim only requires one of the recited types of motion).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Sheyyab in view of Stokes and Junker as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Stumpf et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0001394 A1, cited in IDS submitted July 5, 2024, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 6, Al-Sheyyab does not specifically disclose that the first thermoplastic composite material is the same as the second thermoplastic composite material as recited in claim 6 or that the first thermoplastic composite material is different than the second thermoplastic composite material as recited in claim 7. Stumpf, however, discloses a friction welding method for thermoplastic composites wherein the same or similar (i.e., different) materials are welded together (Abstract, [0031] of Stump, welded parts consist of the same or similar material). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same or different materials for the welded components in the modified method since Stumpf establishes that it was known to use such materials in friction welding processes. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, 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 (MPEP § 2143 I A). 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. In addition, 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. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-26 are allowed.
Regarding claim 22, the closest prior art is to Vetillard et al. (French Patent Publication No. FR 2872779, machine language translation provided and cited below). Vetillard discloses a method for joining thermoplastic composite parts (Abstract of Vetillard) comprising: providing a cross-member comprising a thermoplastic composite material (Abstract, FIG. 3 of Vetillard, cross beam #16); providing a rail comprising a second composite material (Abstract, FIG. 3 of Vetillard, spar section #14a). Vetillard does not specifically disclose disposing the cross member to the rail such that non-parallel joining surfaces are in contact with one another. Vetillard, however, discloses disposes a joining element also made of a thermoplastic composite comprising non-parallel surfaces which contact corresponding surfaces of the cross-member and spar and thereby allow joining (FIG. 3, [0012] of Vetillard). Neither Vetillard nor any of the other prior art references of record teach or reasonably suggest welding the surfaces together using a vibration welding process. Moreover, Vetillard discloses attaching the joining elements using riveting or bolting ([0012] of Vetillard). The prior art as a whole therefore fails to teach or reasonably suggest the totality of the invention as defined by claim 22. In the absence of further prior art guidance, it would not have been obvious to arrive at the invention of claim 22 without impermissible hindsight. For the foregoing reasons, the invention of claim 22 is deemed non-obvious. Claims 23-26 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 22 and are therefore also deemed non-obvious for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered to the extent that they apply to the new grounds of rejection but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that none of the references cited in the previous Office Action teach or reasonably suggest the method of claim 1 wherein the other of the first part or the second part remains stationary (i.e., only one of the vibration welded parts is vibrated). The Office Action, however, is relying upon the newly cited Junker reference to address this limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746