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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claims 1, 5, 6, 16, 18, 19 recite “the frames.” Examiner recommends amending to –the eyeglasses frames—
-Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 18, 20 recite “the blue light LEDs.” Examiner recommends amending to –the set of blue light LEDs—
-Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 18, 19, 20 recites “the red light LEDs.” Examiner recommends amending to –the set of red light LEDs—
-Claim 5 recites “on periphery” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –on the periphery—
-Claim 5 recites “the LEDs” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –the set of blue light LEDs and the set of red light LEDs—
-Claims 16 and 17 recite “the sheet.” Examiner recommends amending to –the blue-light filtering transparent sheet—
-Claim 18 recites “eyeglass frames” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –eyeglasses frames—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-Claim 1 recites “controller” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient
structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is
to control distribution of electrical power from the power source to the blue light LEDs. According to the specification the controller includes a circuit board controller, nano circuit board controller (Arduino) [0023] and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
-Claim 2 recites “periods of time the wearer is supposed to stay awake” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what period of time this claim limitation encompasses. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 2 recites “LEDs are turned on during periods” in line 2. It is unclear how the device is being limited due to the recitation of only method steps in this claim. Should possibly read –LEDs are configured to be turned on during periods—
-Claim 3 recites “LEDs are turned on during periods” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –LEDs are configured to be turned on during periods—
-Claim 3 recites “LEDs are turned on during periods” in line 2. It is unclear how the device is being limited due to the recitation of only method steps in this claim. Should possibly read –LEDs are configured to be turned on during periods—
-Claim 3 recites “periods of time the wearer is supposed to be falling asleep or asleep” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what period of time this claim limitation encompasses. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 18 recites “the wearer of the frames” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should possibly read –the user—
-Claim 18 recites “periods of time in which the user is supposed to be remain awake” in lines 7-8. It is unclear what period of time this claim limitation encompasses. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 18 recites “periods of time in which the user is supposed to fall asleep or be asleep” in lines 9-10. It is unclear what period of time this claim limitation encompasses. Further clarification should be provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Colbaugh (U.S. 20200094015).
Regarding Claim 1, Colbaugh teaches a light therapy device [Fig. 2B, 200 (light therapy platform)], comprising: eyeglasses frames [Fig. 2B, element 201 (glasses frame housing)]; a blue-light filtering transparent sheet coupled to the frames, wherein the blue-light filtering transparent sheet is configured to be moved in and out of a field of view of both eyes of a wearer of the frames [0044]—describes light control valves that include filter material to change between blue-blocking and blue-passing phases and [0022]—includes reference to these filters being automated and switchable; a set of blue light LEDs positioned on a periphery of the frames and configured to direct blue light towards both eyes of the wearer of the frames [0062]—reference to LEDs consisting of red, green and blue LEDs which direct light towards the eyes of the subject and [Fig. 2B, element 212 (radiation generators)]; a set of red light LEDs positioned on the periphery of the frames and configured to direct red light towards both eyes of the wearer of the frames [0062]—reference to LEDs consisting of red, green and blue LEDs which direct light towards the eyes of the subject and [Fig. 2B, element 212 (radiation generators)]; a power source coupled to the frames [Fig. 2B, element 230 (power module)]; a controller coupled to the frames [Fig. 3, element 316 (light therapy controller)] and [Fig. 2B, element 202 (housing processor)], the controller being electrically coupled to the power source, the blue light LEDs, and the red light LEDs [Fig. 2B, element 206 (I/O processing circuitry)], the controller being configured to control distribution of electrical power from the power source to the blue light LEDs and the red light LEDs [0026]—reference to processing circuitry providing control capabilities; and at least one switch coupled to the frames and the controller [0029]—reference to U/I physical switches, wherein the at least one switch is operable to determine whether the electrical power is distributed to the blue light LEDs or the red light LEDs by the controller [0029]—describes the switches turning the therapy platform on/off and controlling radiation generators (including blue and red LEDs), control valves via these switches.
Regarding Claim 2, Colbaugh teaches wherein the electrical power is distributed to the blue light LEDs and the blue light LEDs are turned on during periods of time the wearer is supposed to stay awake [0049]—reference to light therapy provided to subject while awake and active and [0062]—reference to blue LEDs independently providing light radiation.
Regarding Claim 3, Colbaugh teaches wherein the electrical power is distributed to the red light LEDs and the red light LEDs are turned on during periods of time the wearer is supposed to be falling asleep or asleep [0049]—reference to light therapy provided to subject while asleep, in the process of going asleep and [0062]—reference to red LEDs independently providing light radiation.
Regarding Claim 4, Colbaugh teaches wherein the blue-light filtering transparent sheet is configured to be positioned in the field of view of both eyes of the wearer when the red light LEDs are turned on [0079]—reference to the platform providing light and or controlling filter characteristics and [0040]—discussion of radiation generators including red light from LEDs, and [0022]—discloses switchable window filters located on the lenses of the glasses, interpreted to be positioned in the field of view of the eyes.
Regarding Claim 5, Colbaugh teaches wherein the blue light LEDs and the red light LEDs are positioned on periphery of the frames such that the LEDs are not directly in the field of view of the wearer's eyes [Fig. 2B, element 212]—depicting the LEDs located on the periphery of the frame of the glasses.
Regarding Claim 12, Colbaugh teaches wherein the power source is a rechargeable battery coupled to the controller [0068]—reference to the outer frame providing charging for a rechargeable battery [Fig. 2B, element 232 (rechargeable battery)].
Regarding Claim 13, Colbaugh teaches wherein the rechargeable battery includes a wired charging port [0068]—reference to a USB port connected to a USB charger via USB cable.
Regarding Claim 14, Colbaugh teaches further comprising a wireless charging device coupled to the rechargeable battery [0068]—reference to charging battery via wireless charging via an RF carrier.
Regarding Claim 15, Colbaugh teaches wherein the wireless charging device is an inductive charging device [0068]—reference to inductive charge coupling.
Regarding Claim 16, Colbaugh teaches wherein the sheet is removably coupled to the frames, the sheet being positioned in the field of view of both eyes of the wearer when coupled to the frames [0044]—describes the light control valves/blue-light transparent sheet including a phase-change material that changes phase under electric control essentially removing the blue-blocking capabilities when controlled.
Regarding Claim 18, Colbaugh teaches a method for promoting a user to stay awake or fall asleep [0049]—reference to delivering light therapy to a user while the subject is awake, asleep, in the process of going to sleep or waking from sleep, comprising: placing eyeglasses frames on the user's head [Fig. 4, reference to “wear blue blockers”], wherein the eyeglass frames [Fig. 2B, element 201 (glasses frame housing)] includes both: a set of blue light LEDs positioned on a periphery of the frames that direct blue light towards both eyes of the user [0062]—reference to LEDs consisting of red, green and blue LEDs which direct light towards the eyes of the subject and [Fig. 2B, element 212 (radiation generators)]; and a set of red light LEDs positioned on the periphery of the frames that direct red light towards both eyes of the wearer of the frames [0062]—reference to LEDs consisting of red, green and blue LEDs which direct light towards the eyes of the subject and [Fig. 2B, element 212 (radiation generators)]; turning on the blue light LEDs during periods of time in which the user is supposed to remain awake [0049]—reference to light therapy provided to subject while awake and active and [0062]—reference to blue LEDs independently providing light radiation; and turning on the red light LEDs during periods of time in which the user is supposed to fall asleep or be asleep [0049]—reference to light therapy provided to subject while asleep, in the process of going asleep and [0062]—reference to red LEDs independently providing light radiation.
Regarding Claim 19, Colbaugh teaches further comprising placing a blue-light filtering transparent sheet in a field of view of the user's eyes when the red light LEDs are turned on, wherein the blue- light filtering transparent sheet is coupled to the frames [0079]—reference to the platform providing light and or controlling filter characteristics and [0040]—discussion of radiation generators including red light from LEDs, and [0022]—discloses switchable window filters located on the lenses of the glasses, interpreted to be blue-light filtering transparent sheet positioned in the field of view of the eyes.
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) 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colbaugh (U.S. 20200094015) in view of Vaziri (U.S.10064552).
Regarding Claim 6, Colbaugh is silent on wherein the blue light LEDs and the red light LEDs are positioned on the periphery of the frames a specified distance from the wearer's eyes. Vaziri teaches wherein the blue light LEDs and the red light LEDs are positioned on the periphery of the frames a specified distance from the wearer's eyes [Col 14, lines 61-65]—reference to the LEDs placed a distance from the eye surface to the frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a known distance between the LEDs on the frames and the eyes of the user as taught by Vaziri to deliver light for therapeutic effect as suggested by Colbaugh, as Colbaugh discusses the need to create a solution that provides light delivery in a user friendly, accurate platform for controlling light exposure for therapeutic benefit [0003] with Vaziri because Vaziri teaches the device being used for personal use [Col 1, lines 57-59].
Regarding Claim 7, Colbaugh is silent on wherein the specified distance is a distance at which the wearer's eyes can detect light from the LEDs. Vaziri teaches wherein the specified distance is a distance at which the wearer's eyes can detect light from the LEDs [Col 14, lines 59-61]—describes the system tracking bright spots and dark spots from the lights to indicate when the user is wearing the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use light detection information to design the glasses to be a certain distance from the eye as taught by Vaziri to incorporate user specific eye data into use of the device as suggested by Colbaugh, as Colbaugh discusses utilizing pupillometry sensors and blink/gaze tracking to optimally regulate light blocking [0034] with Vaziri because Vaziri teaches estimating pupil detection and center and size of the user [Col 12, lines 25-28 and 33-37].
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colbaugh (U.S. 20200094015) in view of Luo (U.S. 20200289321).
Regarding Claim 8, Colbaugh is silent on wherein the blue light LEDs are configured to output blue light at an illumination of at least 1000 lux at a wavelength of 468 nm. Luo teaches wherein the blue light LEDs are configured to output blue light at an illumination of at least 1000 lux at a wavelength of 468 nm [0112]—references light intensity being 1000 lux or higher and [0065]—references wavelengths within 380-750 nm range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specified light intensity as taught by Luo to incorporate deliver in therapeutic doses to the user’s eye as suggested by Colbaugh, as Colbaugh discusses utilizing blue light within the range of 450-545 nm [0040] with Luo because Luo teaches using these wavelengths to effect sleep of awake states of the user [0062].
Regarding Claim 9, Colbaugh is silent on wherein the red light LEDs are configured to output red light at an illumination of about 250 lux at a wavelength of 632 nm. Luo teaches wherein the red light LEDs are configured to output red light at an illumination of about 250 lux [0112]—reference to at least 250 lux, at a wavelength of 632 nm [0065]—references wavelengths within 380-750 nm range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specified light intensity as taught by Luo to incorporate deliver in therapeutic doses to the user’s eye as suggested by Colbaugh, as Colbaugh discusses utilizing red light within the range of 546-750 nm [0040] with Luo because Luo teaches using these wavelengths to effect sleep of awake states of the user [0062].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colbaugh (U.S. 20200094015) in view of Shealy (U.S. 20060106276).
Regarding Claim 10, Colbaugh is silent on wherein the at least one switch includes a first user switch and a second user switch, wherein the first user switch is configured to turn on/off the blue LED lights, and wherein the second user switch is configured to turn on/off the red LED lights. Shealy teaches wherein the at least one switch includes a first user switch and a second user switch [Fig. 6, element 82 (switch), and 84 (switch)], wherein the first user switch is configured to turn on/off the blue LED lights, and wherein the second user switch is configured to turn on/off the red LED lights [0045]—describes switch 82 controlling red light LEDs and switch 84 controlling blue light LEDs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include switches for both red and blue light functions as taught by Shealy to adjusting control aspects of the light emitted by the LEDs as suggested by Colbaugh, as Colbaugh discusses the use of switches to control radiation generators [0029] with Shealy because Shealy teaches allowing the user to control the light aspects of the device [0003].
Claim(s) 11, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colbaugh (U.S. 20200094015) in view of Wallerberger (WO 2015120500).
Regarding Claim 11, Colbaugh is silent on wherein the at least one switch and the controller are configured to inhibit the red light LEDs from being turned on when the blue light LEDs are turned on and inhibit the blue light LEDs from being turned on when the red light LEDs are turned on. Wallerberger teaches wherein the at least one switch and the controller are configured to inhibit the red light LEDs from being turned on when the blue light LEDs are turned on and inhibit the blue light LEDs from being turned on when the red light LEDs are turned on [0076]—describes the light sources being controlled individually and independently from one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow for independent operation of the light sources via the controller and the switch components as taught by Wallerberger to produce light radiation of varying wavelengths as suggested by Colbaugh, as Colbaugh discusses using light in wavelengths of 760-400 nm [0062] with Wallerberger because Wallerberger teaches the advantages associated with individually controlling the lighting sources such as optimization of light emission for different interpupillary distances [0076].
Regarding Claim 20, Colbaugh is silent on wherein the red light LEDs are turned off when the blue light LEDs are turned on, and wherein the blue light LEDs are turned off when the red light LEDs are turned on. Wallerberger teaches wherein the red light LEDs are turned off when the blue light LEDs are turned on, and wherein the blue light LEDs are turned off when the red light LEDs are turned on [0076]—describes the light sources being controlled individually and independently from one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow for independent operation of the light sources as taught by Wallerberger to produce light radiation of varying wavelengths as suggested by Colbaugh, as Colbaugh discusses using light in wavelengths of 760-400 nm [0062] with Wallerberger because Wallerberger teaches the advantages associated with individually controlling the lighting sources such as optimization of light emission for different interpupillary distances [0076].
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colbaugh (U.S. 20200094015) in view of Phelps, James, Dark therapy for bipolar disorder using amber lenses for blue light blockage, Medical Hypotheses, 70, 224-229, 2008.
Regarding Claim 17, Colbaugh is silent on wherein the sheet is an amber, blue-light filtering transparent sheet. Phelps teaches wherein the sheet is an amber, blue-light filtering transparent sheet [Pg. 227, Paragraph 1; “a series of patients were given amber-tinted plastic safety glasses in the context of outpatient treatment for Bipolar Disorder. Those selected for this trial had initial insomnia at minimum; many had an additional evidence of circadian rhythm disruption, such as highly fragmented sleep.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow include amber tinted lenses as taught by Phelps to filter blue light as suggested by Colbaugh, as Colbaugh discusses filtering blue light from the ambient environment [0022] with Phelps because Phelps teaches the importance of blue light on regular sleep pattern reinforcement [Pg. 228, paragraph 2].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Kasbergen (U.S. 12179037)-references device situated on the face in an eyeglass configuration that contributes to vision training and therapy
-Spiegel (WO 2020025355)-contains eyewear with LEDs that control an amount of light to switch between light intensities
-Malchano (U.S. 20230022546)-includes a glasses device with LEDs emitting light towards a user’s eyes
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791