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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/20/26 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-22 are currently pending examination, claims 7 and 16 have been canceled.
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.
Claim(s) 12-15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett et al (US 2018/0312950; hereafter Barrett) in view of La Forest al (US 2020/0308066; hereafter Forest).
Claim 12: Barrett teaches a method of forming a ceramic matrix composite (see, for example, abstract), the method comprising:
three-dimensionally weaving a fibrous preform (3-D woven preform) (see, for example, abstract, Figures), by:
laying of plurality of warp tows in a first layer (such as bottom 2-D preform of plurality of stacked 2-D preforms)
laying a plurality of weft tows in a second layer (such as a 2-D preform residing upon the bottom 2-D preform, or alternatively even the weft tows within the bottom preform wherein the first and second layers can coexist)
weaving a plurality of z-fibers orthogonally between the plurality of warp tows and the plurality of weft tows (see, for example, Fig 1-3, [0020-0024]).
decomposing the plurality of z-fibers to form a respective plurality of z-channels in the preform (see, for example Fig 2-3, [0015];
and depositing an interface coating on the preform following decomposing the plurality of z-fibers (see, for example, infiltration [0016], either CVI and / or melt infiltration).
Barrett does not explicitly teach a step of debulking the preform. Forest teaches a method of producing composite components (See, for example, abstract, [0001-0002]). Forest further teaches generation of channels within formed composite components by incorporation and elimination of sacrificial fibers within the composite preform (See, for example, abstract, [0009-0012]). Forest further teaches wherein following decomposition of the sacrificial fibers and before subsequent infiltration steps, a step of debulking (compression, optionally with heating) is conducted to assist densification and / or carbonization (See, for example, [0041]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated debulking (compression, optionally with heating) of the preform after decomposition of the sacrificial fibers and before subsequent infiltration as such a step is conventional in the art to predictably enhance densification, carbonization, and shaping.
Claim 13: Barrett further teaches wherein densification is achieved via CVI (see, for example, [0016], as it is an iterative process, initial CVI deposition is interpreted as depositing the interface coating, and subsequent application is interpreted as densification).
Claim 14: Barrett further teaches wherein each of the plurality of warp tows and weft tows is formed from silicon carbide (see, for example, [0025]).
Claim 15: Barrett further teaches wherein each of the plurality of z-fibers is formed from polymers, further polyvinyl alcohol (see, for example, [0026]).
Claim 17: Forest further teaches wherein the step of debulking the preform comprises applying at least one of pressure and heat to the preform, and performed following decomposition (see, for example, [0041], and the rejection of claim 12 above).
Claim 18: Barrett in view of Forest teach the method of claim 12 above wherein Barrett has taught the step of decomposing the plurality of z-fibers comprises heating the preform to a temperature “up to about 1000oC in the presence of oxygen or nitrogen (removal via “oxidation” would require presence of oxygen, additionally / alternatively as no explicit atmosphere is taught one of ordinary skill would assume standard air atmosphere which comprises oxygen and nitrogen)(see, for example, [0015], [0061]). Although not explicitly the claimed temperature range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a temperature ranging from 400° C. to 800° C since in the case 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.(MPEP 2144.05 II A)
Claim 20: Barrett further teaches wherein each z-channel is spaced apart from an adjacent z-channel a uniform distance ranging from about 0.056 in to 0.083 in (about 12 to about 18 PPI) (See, for example, [0021], and figure 3).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett in view of Forest as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of webcapture of Elephchem webpage https://www.elephchem.com/pva-dissolution-methods dated 8/30/21; hereafter Elephchem.
Claim 19: Barrett in view of Forest teaches the method of claim 12 above. Barrett further teaches wherein the sacrificial z-fibers are formed from organic polymers, copolymers, and mixtures thereof, further polyvinyl alcohol, polyamides, polyesters (see, for example, [0026]). Barrett further teaches removal at elevated temperature and leaching / dissolution in a fluid medium, further water. Barrett in view of Forest do not explicitly teach wherein the water as boiling. Elephchem demonstrates the well-known teaching that temperature catalyzes liquid dissolution behavior, and further teaches wherein the dissolution temperature of polymers, particularly PVA is related to its degree of polymerization and acetate content, thus the dissolution rate can be controlled by changing the temperature and time (See, for example, pg 1). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the removal / decomposition via dissolution in a boiling water bath since providing the water at such elevated temperature would predictably hasten the dissolution rate, and / or since “[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).
Claim(s) 12-15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian et al (US 2006/0283014l hereafter Subramanian) in view of Forest.
Claim 12: Subramanian teaches a method of forming a ceramic matrix composite (see, for example, abstract, Fig 1), the method comprising:
three-dimensionally weaving a fibrous preform (3-D woven preform) (see, for example, abstract, Figures), by:
laying of plurality of warp tows in a first layer (such as bottom unidirectional ply of plurality of stacked plies)
laying a plurality of weft tows in a second layer (such as a ply residing upon the bottom ply)
weaving a plurality of z-fibers orthogonally between the plurality of warp tows and the plurality of weft tows (see, for example, Fig 1, 3-4, [0024-0026], or alternatively when considering ply to ply the laying of an initial ply comprising a plurality of warp tows can be interpreted as the first layer and a subsequent ply comprising a plurality of weft tows can be interpreted as the second layer).
and depositing an interface coating the preform following decomposing the plurality of z-fibers (see, for example, Fig 1, [0027-29], such as initial CVI deposition).
Subramanian does not explicitly teach a step of debulking the preform. Forest teaches a method of producing composite components (See, for example, abstract, [0001-0002]). Forest further teaches generation of channels within formed composite components by incorporation and elimination of sacrificial fibers within the composite preform (See, for example, abstract, [0009-0012]). Forest further teaches wherein following decomposition of the sacrificial fibers and before subsequent infiltration steps, a step of debulking (compression, optionally with heating) is conducted to assist densification and / or carbonization (See, for example, [0041]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated debulking (compression, optionally with heating) of the preform after decomposition of the sacrificial fibers and before subsequent infiltration as such a step is conventional in the art to predictably enhance densification, carbonization, and shaping.
Claim 13: Subramanian further teaches wherein densification is achieved via CVI (see, for example, [0028], as CVI it is an iterative process, initial CVI deposition is interpreted as depositing the interface coating, and subsequent application is interpreted as densification).
Claim 14: Subramanian further teaches wherein each of the plurality of warp tows and weft tows is formed from silicon carbide (see, for example, [0024]).
Claim 15: Subramanian further teaches wherein each of the plurality of z-fibers is formed from a material that is oxidizable at a temperature between 50-1000oC, preferable a polymer like rayon, nylon and cotton (See, for example, [0026]).
Claim 17: Forest further teaches wherein the step of debulking the preform comprises applying at least one of pressure and heat to the preform and is performed following decomposition of the plurality of z-fibers (see, for example, [0041]).
Claim 18: Subramanian further teaches decomposition of the z-fibers by heating the preform at about 400oC to about 800oC in an oxygen containing atmosphere (see, for example, [0027]).
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-15, 17-18, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett in view of Forest and further in view of Potluri et al (US 2015/0107715; hereafter Potluri).
Claim 1: Barrett teaches a method of forming a ceramic matrix composite (see, for example, abstract), the method comprising:
Forming a fibrous preform via three-dimensionally weaving a fibrous preform (3-D woven preform) (see, for example, abstract, Figures), the preform comprising:
a plurality of warp tows; a plurality of weft tows; and a plurality of z-fibers passing orthogonally between the plurality of warp and the plurality of weft tows (see, for example, abstract, Fig 1-3, [0012-0014], [0024]);
decomposing the plurality of z-fibers to form a respective plurality of z-channels in the preform (see, for example Fig 2-3, [0015];
and densifying the preform with a ceramic matrix (see, for example, infiltration [0016].
Barrett does not explicitly teach a step of debulking the preform. Forest teaches a method of producing composite components (See, for example, abstract, [0001-0002]). Forest further teaches generation of channels within formed composite components by incorporation and elimination of sacrificial fibers within the composite preform (See, for example, abstract, [0009-0012]). Forest further teaches wherein following decomposition of the sacrificial fibers and before subsequent infiltration steps, a step of debulking (compression, optionally with heating) is conducted to assist densification and / or carbonization (See, for example, [0041]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated debulking (compression, optionally with heating) of the preform after decomposition of the sacrificial fibers and before subsequent infiltration as such a step is conventional in the art to predictably enhance densification, carbonization, and shaping.
Barrett has taught the fibrous preform is formed via laying up a plurality of 2-D preforms and subsequently orthogonally weaving therethrough a plurality of z-fibers (See, for example, Fig 1-3), so it does not explicitly teach wherein the weaving of warp tow, weft tows, and z-fibers occurs via simultaneously weaving of the warp tows, weft tows, and z fibers. Potluri teaches a method of preparing 3-D woven preforms for reinforced composite materials for aerospace applications (See, for example, [0002]). Potluri teaches wherein conventional method relying upon stacking of separate preforms and subsequent joining is undesirable as it adds manufacturing steps and introduces weakness to the integrity and strength of the product, whereas its simultaneous 3-D weaving method overcomes these issues providing 3-D woven preforms with stronger structural forms and more complex shapes in a cost effective manner with limited fiber damage (See, for example, abstract, Fig 4a-b, [0006]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated simultaneously weaving of the warp tows, weft tows, and z fibers as it would predictably reduce manufacturing steps, and reduce weakening the integrity and strength of the product.
Claim 2: Barrett further teaches wherein each of the plurality of warp tows and weft tows is formed from silicon carbide (see, for example, [0025]).
Claim 3-4: Barrett further teaches wherein each of the plurality of z-fibers is formed from polymers, further polyvinyl alcohol (see, for example, [0026]).
Claim 5: Forest further teaches wherein the step of debulking the preform comprises applying at least one of pressure and heat to the preform, and is performed following decomposition of the plurality of z-fibers (see, for example, [0041]).
Claim 6: Barrett in view of Forest teach the method of claim 1 above wherein Barrett has taught the step of decomposing the plurality of z-fibers comprises heating the preform to a temperature “up to about 1000oC in the presence of oxygen or nitrogen (removal via “oxidation” would require presence of oxygen, additionally / alternatively as no explicit atmosphere is taught one of ordinary skill would assume standard air atmosphere which comprises oxygen and nitrogen)(see, for example, [0015], [0061]). Although not explicitly the claimed temperature range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a temperature ranging from 400° C. to 800° C since in the case 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.(MPEP 2144.05 II A)
Claim 8: Barrett further teaches wherein each z-channel is spaced apart from an adjacent z-channel a uniform distance ranging from about 0.056 in to 0.083 in (about 12 to about 18 PPI) (See, for example, [0021], and figure 3).
Claim 9: Barrett further teaches after decomposing the plurality of z-fibers, applying an interface coating on the preform using chemical vapor infiltration (see, for example, [0016] wherein CVI precedes a melt infiltration).
Claim 10: Barrett further teaches wherein the preform tow fibers comprises silicon carbide, silicon nitride, or carbon or combinations thereof and wherein the interface coating comprises silicon; the interface coating thereof would meet the claimed species of the layer comprising silicon nitride, silicon carbide, and / or carbon (see, for example, [0025], [0016]).
Claim 11: Barrett further teaches wherein the step of densifying the preform is carried out using CVI (See, for example, [0016]).
Claim 12: refer to the rejection of claim 1 above over Barret in view of Forest and Potluri wherein Barret in view of Potluri the stacking / laying of plurality of layers of warp and weft tows and weaving of the sacrificial z-fiber orthogonally therethrough occur (see, for example, rejection of claim 1 Fig 1 and 4 of Potluri and Fig 3 of Barrett). Barrett in view of Forest and Potluri has further taught the order of weaving, decomposing, debulking, and infiltration with a matrix (further inclusive of depositing an interface coating on the preform (See, for example, the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 13 above/ below, and Forest [0041-0042], [0046]).
Claim 13: Barrett further teaches wherein densification is achieved via CVI (see, for example, [0016], as it is an iterative process, initial CVI deposition is interpreted as depositing the interface coating, and subsequent application is interpreted as densification).
Claim 14: refer to the rejections of claims 12 and 2 above.
Claims 15: refer to the rejections of claims 12 and 3-4 above.
Claim 17: refer to the rejections of claims 12 and 5 above.
Claim 18: refer to the rejections of claims 12 and 6 above.
Claim 20: refer to the rejections of claims 12 and 8 above.
Claim 21-22: refer to the rejections of claims 1 and 12 above, and Potluri further teaches wherein the 3-D weaving is performed via a Jacquard machine (See, for example, Fig 1, [0131]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett in view of Forest and Potluri as applied to claim 1 / 12 above, and further in view of webcapture of Elephchem webpage https://www.elephchem.com/pva-dissolution-methods dated 8/30/21; hereafter Elephchem.
Claims 7 and 19: Barrett in view of Forest and Potluri teaches the method of claim 1 / 12 above. Barrett further teaches wherein the sacrificial z-fibers are formed from organic polymers, copolymers, and mixtures thereof, further polyvinyl alcohol, polyamides, polyesters (see, for example, [0026]). Barrett further teaches removal at elevated temperature and leaching / dissolution in a fluid medium, further water. Barrett in view of Forest do not explicitly teach wherein the water as boiling. Elephchem demonstrates the well-known teaching that temperature catalyzes liquid dissolution behavior, and further teaches wherein the dissolution temperature of polymers, particularly PVA is related to its degree of polymerization and acetate content, thus the dissolution rate can be controlled by changing the temperature and time (See, for example, pg 1). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the removal / decomposition via dissolution in a boiling water bath since providing the water at such elevated temperature would predictably hasten the dissolution rate, and / or since “[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).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-15, 17-18, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramanian in view of Forest and Potluri.
Claim 1: Subramanian teaches a method of forming a ceramic matrix composite (see, for example, abstract, Fig 1), the method comprising:
forming a fibrous preform via three-dimensionally weaving (3-D woven preform) (see, for example, abstract, Figure 4, [0026]), comprising:
a plurality of warp tows; a plurality of weft tows; and a plurality of z-fibers passing orthogonally between the plurality of warp and the plurality of weft tows (see, for example, abstract, Figure 4, [0026]),
decomposing the plurality of z-fibers to form a respective plurality of z-channels in the preform (see, for example Fig 5, [0027];
and densifying the preform with a ceramic matrix (see, for example, [0029].
Subramanian does not explicitly teach a step of debulking the preform. Forest teaches a method of producing composite components (See, for example, abstract, [0001-0002]). Forest further teaches generation of channels within formed composite components by incorporation and elimination of sacrificial fibers within the composite preform (See, for example, abstract, [0009-0012]). Forest further teaches wherein following decomposition of the sacrificial fibers and before subsequent infiltration steps, a step of debulking (compression, optionally with heating) is conducted to assist densification and / or carbonization (See, for example, [0041]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated debulking (compression, optionally with heating) of the preform after decomposition of the sacrificial fibers and before subsequent infiltration as such a step is conventional in the art to predictably enhance densification, carbonization, and shaping.
Subramanian has taught the fibrous preform is formed via laying up a plurality of unidirectional / bi-directional plies and subsequently orthogonally weaving therethrough a plurality of z-fibers (See, for example, Fig 1, Fig 3-4, [0024-0026]), so it does not explicitly teach wherein the weaving of warp tow, weft tows, and z-fibers occurs via simultaneously weaving of the warp tows, weft tows, and z fibers. Potluri teaches a method of preparing 3-D woven preforms for reinforced composite materials for aerospace applications (See, for example, [0002]). Potluri teaches wherein conventional method relying upon stacking of separate preforms and subsequent joining is undesirable as it adds manufacturing steps and introduces weakness to the integrity and strength of the product, whereas its simultaneous 3-D weaving method overcomes these issues providing 3-D woven preforms with stronger structural forms and more complex shapes in a cost effective manner with limited fiber damage (See, for example, abstract, Fig 4a-b, [0006]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated simultaneously weaving of the warp tows, weft tows, and z fibers as it would predictably reduce manufacturing steps, and reduce weakening the integrity and strength of the product.
Claim 2: Subramanian further teaches wherein each of the plurality of warp tows and weft tows is formed from silicon carbide (see, for example, [0024]).
Claim 3: Subramanian further teaches wherein each of the plurality of z-fibers is formed from a material that is oxidizable at a temperature between 50-1000oC, preferable a polymer like rayon, nylon and cotton (See, for example, [0026]).
Claim 5: Forest further teaches wherein the step of debulking the preform comprises applying at least one of pressure and heat to the preform, and is performed following decomposition of the plurality of z-fibers (see, for example, [0041]).
Claim 6: Subramanian further teaches decomposition of the z-fibers by heating the preform at about 400oC to about 800oC in an oxygen containing atmosphere (see, for example, [0027]).
Claims 9-10: Subramanian further teaches after decomposing the plurality of z-fibers, applying an interface coating (step 140), further of BN and / or SiC, on the preform using chemical vapor infiltration (see, for example, abstract, Fig 1, [0028]).
Claim 11: Subramanian further teaches wherein a step of densifying (at least partially) the preform is carried out using CVI (See, for example, [0028]).
Claim 12: refer to the rejection of claim 1 above over Subramanian in view of Forest and Potluri and Subramanian in view of Potluri have taught the stacking / laying of plurality of layers of warp and weft tows and weaving of the sacrificial z-fiber orthogonally therethrough occur (see, for example, rejection of claim 1 Fig 1 and 4 of Potluri and Fig 4, and [0024-26] of Subramanian). Subramanian in view of Forest have further taught the order of weaving, decomposing, debulking, and infiltration with a matrix (further inclusive of depositing an interface coating on the preform) (See, for example, the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 13 above/ below, and Forest [0041-0042], [0046]).
Claim 13: Subramanian further teaches wherein densification is achieved via CVI (see, for example, [0028], as CVI it is an iterative process, initial CVI deposition is interpreted as depositing the interface coating, and subsequent application is interpreted as densification).
Claim 14: refer to the rejections of claims 12 and 2 above.
Claim 15: refer to the rejections of claims 12 and 3 above.
Claim 17: refer to the rejections of claims 12 and 5 above.
Claim 18: refer to the rejections of claims 12 and 6 above.
Claim 21-22: refer to the rejections of claims 1 and 12 above, and Potluri further teaches wherein the 3-D weaving is performed via a Jacquard machine (See, for example, Fig 1, [0131]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments directed to amended claim 12 that neither Barrett nor Subramanian teach the amended content is unconvincing. As noted in the rejection over Barrett in view of Forest of claim 12 above, although individual plies of the stack are woven, the laying of each woven ply would still involve the laying of a plurality of warp tows in a first / second layer (as there is nothing distinguishing the first and second layer spatially), or alternatively when considering ply to ply the laying of an initial ply comprising a plurality of warp tows can be interpreted as the first layer and a subsequent ply comprising a plurality of weft tows can be interpreted as the second layer. As noted in the rejection over Subramanian in view of Forest of claim 12 above, Subramanian has explicitly taught wherein each individual ply being stacked can be unidirectional, thus one ply to next could be interpreted as satisfying the claim, or alternatively assuming each ply has to be woven as argued by applicant, when considering ply to ply the laying of an initial ply comprising a plurality of warp tows can be interpreted as the first layer and a subsequent ply comprising a plurality of weft tows can be interpreted as the second layer.
Additionally, Applicant’s arguments that the references do not teach the newly added limitations are further unconvincing in view of newly-cited and incorporated Potluri as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712