DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10 October 2025 has been entered, and the 37 CFR 1.103(c) suspension period has expired.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that the present application is a member of a patent family having a number of similar or corresponding foreign and/or domestic filings. Applicant is reminded of the duty under 37 CFR 1.56(a) to disclose information material to patentability, such as (a) Office Actions and prior art related to the claimed invention which have been cited during prosecution of related filings, (b) prior foreign or domestic filings by Applicant(s) which are related to the claimed or disclosed invention and which constitute prior art, (c) related brochures, dissertations, or other research publications, including that which has been authored by one or more inventors listed under this application or by other individuals under which or along which one or more inventors may have been working, and (d) any other relevant prior art Applicant may be aware of, including since the filing of any previous information disclosure statement (IDS). Note, in particular, recent Office actions issued in the corresponding DE 102017006860 filing.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10 October 2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Remarks
Remarks filed on 10 October 2025 are addressed in succession as follows:
Drawings: The previously outlined objection to the drawings is addressed at Rem. 5. It is acknowledged that this objection is overcome by the 10 October 2025 amendment to Figs. 4b-c.
Specification: The previously outlined objection to the specification is addressed at Rem. 6-9. It is first noted that the portion of this objection set forth at Page 8 lines 4-7 of the Office action issued on 10 April 2025 is withdrawn due to it being unclear whether the added [144] language referencing “FIG. 4” in fact pertains to Fig. 4a in particular or to Figs. 4a-c as a whole.
Further, these Rem. 6-9 remarks are not found persuasive at this time for the following reasons:
The added language to [144] references “FIG. 4” as a whole as showing how the sintering unit impacts temperature of both the printed and unprinted areas in a single embodiment. While Figs. 4b-c pertain to unprinted and printed areas respectively, these figures each represent a separate process “run according to a prior art method” (1st sentence of [145]), and so these cannot be alleged to provide support for the [144] amendment pertaining to temperature of both the printed and unprinted areas in a single embodiment. Further, while the originally filed specification’s description of Fig. 4a coincides most closely to the added [144] language pertaining to the printed area in particular, this original description of Fig. 4a is not sufficiently specific with respect to the unprinted area as well, and so this figure likewise cannot be alleged to provide support for the [144] amendment pertaining to temperature of both the printed and unprinted areas in a single embodiment.
If the [144] amendment is to remain in the specification, then further clarification is requested as to what portion of the specification describes the recited impact of the sintering unit on temperature of both the unprinted and printed areas, in particular as “illustrated in FIG. 4” as a whole.
35 U.S.C. 112(a): The previously outlined new matter rejections are addressed at Rem. 9. It is acknowledged that the rejection of claims 1 and 33 is overcome by claim amendments. The rejection of claim 32 is maintained for the same or similar reasons set forth in the preceding paragraph.
Although the rejection of claim 34 is addressed in part by removal of “at least”, the new matter rejection of this claim is maintained due to the recitation of “two” overhead radiators as opposed to the specification’s disclosure of only a single overhead radiator in any one embodiment. It is noted that the specification’s description of an “overhead” radiator being “equipped with thermal radiators” is believed to correspond for example to Fig. 6 component 601, in other words whereby short-wave infrared (i.e. thermal) radiator 601 constitutes one of such thermal radiators as opposed to one that may be characterized as an “overhead” radiator as this term is utilized by the specification. If it is intended for claim 34 to coincide with the specification’s disclosure of an overhead radiator “equipped with thermal radiators” (as opposed to reciting plural overhead radiators as a whole), then it is suggested that a fully supported amendment be made to this effect.
35 U.S.C. 102/103: Although the previously outlined 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection(s) are addressed at Rem. 10, remarks in this regard fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define over Barnes without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them therefrom. Barnes is believed to read on to the amended claims and in turn remains applied below. It is noted that Barnes is now cited under prior art Rejection 2, with Rejection 1 cited below over US 2015/0266238 made of record via IDS.
Upon review of the above response(s), Applicant’s Representative is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly for further clarification on any outstanding issues, to discuss potential claim amendments that might help to advance prosecution, and/or to discuss what Applicant believes to be the crux of the claimed and/or disclosed invention as it is believed to distinguish over the prior art.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. However, Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date for reasons set forth under the objection to the specification and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections below.
It is noted that a later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Specification
New Matter: The amendment to the specification as filed on 07 March 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure includes portions of the [144] amendment directed to “FIG. 4” (as a whole) showing how the sintering unit impacts temperature of both the printed and unprinted areas in a single embodiment. While Figs. 4b-c pertain to unprinted and printed areas respectively, these figures each represent a separate process “run according to a prior art method” (1st sentence of [145]), and so these cannot be alleged to provide support for the [144] amendment pertaining to temperature of both the printed and unprinted areas in a single inventive embodiment. Further, while the originally filed specification’s description of Fig. 4a coincides most closely to the added [144] language pertaining to the printed area in particular, this original description of Fig. 4a is not sufficiently specific with respect to the unprinted area as well, and so this figure likewise cannot be alleged to provide support for the [144] amendment pertaining to temperature of both the printed and unprinted areas in a single embodiment.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action, or to identify what originally filed portions of the specification provide support therefor. If the [144] amendment is to remain in the specification, then further clarification is required as to what portion of the specification describes the recited impact of the sintering unit on temperature of both the unprinted and printed areas, in particular as “illustrated in FIG. 4” as a whole.
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.
Claims 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular:
The subject matter recited by claim 32, including provision of a sintering unit impacting temperature of both a printed and unprinted area in the manner claimed is neither recited nor otherwise supported by the specification as originally filed. See also the new matter objection set forth above pertaining to the 07 March 2025 amendment adding corresponding subject matter to [144] of the specification.
The claim 34 provision of two stationary overhead radiators is considered new matter. It is noted the claimed overhead radiator is believed to correspond to component 108 of the specification; although the Fig. 1/6 overhead radiator 108 is described as being “equipped with thermal radiators” or radiator components, these individual radiators/components of overhead radiator 108 are not each described or otherwise characterized also as “overhead” radiators; that is, only unit 108 is characterized as such, and a plurality thereof is not disclosed.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 27-32, 34, and 46-51 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,279,087. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims individually or collectively recite each of the instant claim 1 platform (patented claims 7, 13, 14), coater (patented claims 5, 7, 13-15), print head (patented claims 5, 13, 15), first radiator (as the claim 7 fluid-cooled radiator), and second radiator (as the claim 1 radiator), with what may be construed as a sintering unit comprising the above radiator(s) passing over the platform in the manner claimed as evidenced by the print head depositing absorber before radiation being applied (patented claim 5, 13, 15). The instant dependent claims are likewise recited or otherwise obvious corresponding recitations of the patented claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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;
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Rejection 1
Claims 1, 27-32, 34, and 46-51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ederer et al. (US 2015/0266238) in view of Barnes et al. (published either as US 2018/0319082 or as WO 2017/131764, the former of which is cited herein, including as an English language equivalent).
As to claim 1, Ederer teaches a device for producing 3D molded parts using a powder-based printing process (abstract), the device comprising a construction platform 102 (figs. 1,2), a coater 101 for applying particulate construction material in layers over the platform only while traveling in a left-to-right forward direction as depicted in fig. 2 step IV, a print head 100 for selectively applying an absorber 109 on the construction material as depicted in fig. 2 step I (note that although intended use of an “absorber” does not further limit structure of the claimed device, Ederer’s [0053] moderating agent 109 is disclosed for example at [0009] as an IR acceptor i.e. absorber), and a sintering unit 200 (fig. 2 step IV) which in at least the fig. 19 embodiment comprises first radiator 200 in addition to additional radiator segments 2000, one or more of which corresponds to the claimed second radiator (see also sintering recited in the abstract), wherein the sintering unit passes over the construction platform in the left-to-right forward direction as depicted in fig. 2 step IV after the print head 100 selectively applies the absorber 109 in step I.
Ederer differs from claim 1 by not specifying that at least one of radiators 200/2000 comprises the claimed radiation filter. However, Ederer does disclose a need to control emitted radiation wavelength (claim 13) and/or heating [0075]-[0076], and Barnes teaches a similar apparatus but which comprises such a filter for helping to control emitted radiation wavelength and/or heating (Barnes abstract, [0019], [0024]-[0025], [0029], etc.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Barnes into Ederer, in particular so as to provide such a radiation filter for one or more of Ederer’s radiators 200/2000, and/or to replace one or more of said radiators with a corresponding equivalent which comprises such a filter, so as to facilitate Ederer’s above-cited control of emitted wavelength and/or heating, and or to prevent overheating of not-to-be fused powder while allowing powder applied with agent to fuse as intended, as disclosed by Barnes for example at [0029].
Ederer’s above-cited device also comprises the claim 27 third radiator (as one or more of radiator 200 and/or radiators 2000) which in fig. 2 step IV passes over platform 102 after coater 101 applies material and before print head 100 applies absorber to that layer in step I, comprises the claim 28-30 simultaneous movement, comprises the claim 31 operation in the same direction for the coater and print head and the ability for such operation for the sintering unit and third radiator (i.e. whereby such operation for the sintering unit and third radiator are not considered distinguishing features over Ederer’s fig. 2 despite its depiction of operating component 200 in a reverse direction), is believed to be capable of operating as recited in claim 32, comprises the claim 34 and claim 51 radiators (as one or more of the above-cited radiators 200/2000, due to their ability to be held stationary as opposed to moving, and due to their overhead arrangement with respect to the construction platform), comprises the claim 46-47 third radiator as set forth under the rejection of claim 27 above in addition to a wavelength range overlapping that of claim 46 (see Ederer’s claim 13 in addition to MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding obviousness of overlapping ranges), is believed to comprise an absorber meeting that of claim 48 (see at least the above citations as relevant), and in combination with Barnes is believed to meet the adjustability and spectra recited by claims 49-50 (see at least the above-cited relevant citations taken from these references, including Ederer at [0075]-[0076]).
Claims 34 and 49-51 are additionally/alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ederer in view of Barnes as applied above (hereafter “modified Ederer”), and further in view of Ederer et al. (WO 2016/101942, with US 10,682,809 cited herein as an English language equivalent), hereafter Ederer ’809.
In addition/alternative to the above rejections of claims 34 and 49-51 over modified Ederer, it is noted that Ederer ’809 discloses a remarkably similar apparatus comprising each of these dependent claim components as set forth for example in at least the fig. 1, 4, 5, and 8-13 embodiments and their corresponding description. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the above teachings from Ederer ’809 into modified Ederer as set forth above as providing the ability for additional temperature control.
Rejection 2
Claims 1, 27-32, 34, and 48-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 and/or 2) as being anticipated by Barnes et al. published either as US 2018/0319082 or as WO 2017/131764, the former of which is cited herein, including as an English language equivalent.
Claims 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes as applied to at least claim 1.
As to claim 1, Barnes teaches a device corresponding to that which is claimed and which comprises each of the claimed platform, coater, print head, and sintering unit as set forth in at least the fig. 7 embodiment and its corresponding description. Note, for example, use of the [0039] stage corresponding to the claimed platform, media distributor 637 corresponding to the claimed coater, print heads 603A/B, and units 609 and/or 645 corresponding to the claimed sintering unit(s)/radiators, in addition to filters 613A/B and rails 641 over which media manipulating structure 635 to which the above unit(s)/radiators are mounted for the claimed passing over the construction platform.
It is noted also the pending claims are directed to an apparatus which is limited to structural limitations thereof as opposed to intended function or use (MPEP 2113,2114). In this regard, certain claim recitations such as applying particulate construction material “only while traveling in a forward direction”, applying a material which acts as “an absorber”, and causing the sintering unit to pass over the construction platform “in the forward direction after the print head selectively applies the absorber” are understood as pertaining to an intended function of the claimed apparatus which does not rise to the level of distinguishing structurally over corresponding components of Barnes set forth above, including for example a manner in which the Barnes components are capable of being utilized, regardless of whether such use is expressly recited by Barnes.
Notably, however, each of the claimed intended functions/utilities are in fact disclosed by Barnes as set forth in at least the above-cited embodiment. See also the disclosed fig. 1, 4, 5, and 6 embodiments of Barnes and their corresponding description, as relevant. See further the Barnes disclosure of the above-cited print heads disposing a material set forth for example at [0016], [0017], [0030], [0038], etc. as corresponding to the claimed absorber. It is noted again that even without these intended use disclosures, Barnes would still anticipate structural limitations of what claim 1 presently recites and is believed to otherwise be capable of the intended use/function recited by claim 1.
As further evidence in this regard, and in particular with respect to the claimed forward direction and the claimed sintering unit passing after the print head applies absorber, see the following interpretations (1)-(2):
(1) Barnes in fig. 9 clarifies a first step 800 of distributing powder (via fig. 7 coater 637) and step 810 of dispensing agent (via fig. 7 print heads 603 A/B) before step 820 of irradiating (via fig. 7 sinter unit(s)/radiators 609/645), thereby providing an order of use for the fig. 7 device components which corresponds to what is presently claimed (i.e. whereby the sintering unit passes after the printhead), for each formed layer of a given build. A “forward direction”, in this instance, might be construed as right-to-left of the Fig. 7 scanning direction SD due to the relative position of coater 637 and print heads 603 A/B. Sintering unit 609/645 passes over the above-cited construction platform in this forward direction not only during the period of time between step 800 of distributing powder and step 810 of dispensing agent for each formed layer of a given build, but also at some point during formation of a subsequent layer. Note that instant claim 1 does not specify that the sintering unit is active during the claimed passing in the forward direction after applying absorber, and so even an inactive prior art sintering unit would meet the claimed passing in the forward direction after applying absorber.
(2) Even without the fig. 9 disclosure addressed under interpretation (1), Barnes in fig. 7 depicts a scanning direction SD along which manipulating structure 635 (which carries radiators 609 and coater 637) scans over rail 641, with this scanning direction SD being both from right-to-left and also from left-to-right, layer-by-layer during a build, whereby the sintering unit either passes or is at least capable of passing after print head application as claimed and in the claimed forward direction (e.g. during formation of each build layer, while irradiating a subsequent build layer as compared with a previous layer over which print head application takes place, or during its movement even when inactive).
Because the presently claimed configuration does not distinguish structurally either over what Barnes explicitly discloses, or over how the Barnes device is capable of use, the claim 1 device components and their claimed configuration are believed to be anticipated by the Barnes disclosure.
The above-cited Barnes device comprises each of the claim 27 third radiator and claim 30 movability thereof, the claim 28-29 and claim 31 movability, the claim 32 ability to increase temperature as claimed, the claim 34 and claim 51 radiators (either as one or more of the above-cited radiators 609 or as radiator 645, due to their ability to be held stationary as opposed to moving, and due to their overhead arrangement with respect to the construction platform), the claim 46-47 attachment of a third radiator to coater 637 in addition to a wide range of applicable wavelengths such as those overlapping the claim 46 range (see at least [0024], and see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding obviousness of overlapping ranges in addition to MPEP 2144.05(II) regarding routine optimization, as applicable), the claim 48 provision of an absorber which would selectively absorb certain wavelengths (note at least the [0038] disclosure of different colors as appropriate, in addition to the remaining disclosure as relevant), the claim 49 adjustability (note the [0021] description of power consumption, the [0028]-[0030] description of intensity, and the page 5, col. 2, claim 4 description of peak intensity, one or more of which is believed to imply the claimed adjustability), and the claim 50 provision of different spectra (note the above-cited use of different filters, or of filters only for some radiators). See again at least the above-cited fig. 7 embodiment and its corresponding description.
It is noted again, with respect to the dependent claims, that an apparatus claim is generally not believed to be further limited by an intended material or article worked upon thereby (MPEP § 2115) or by an intended manner of its operation (MPEP § 2114(II)), and must instead distinguish over prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Although Barnes discloses intended use/function as recited by one or more of the dependent claims, any such limitations as they appear in the dependent claims are not in fact believed to distinguish over Barnes, which is believed to provide the structure recited by the above-cited dependent claims and is believed to be capable of the claimed intended use/function therefor.
Claims 34 and 49-51 are additionally/alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes as applied above, and further in view of Ederer et al. (WO 2016/101942, with US 10,682,809 cited herein as an English language equivalent).
In addition/alternative to the above rejections of claims 34 and 49-51 over Barnes alone, it is noted that Ederer discloses a remarkably similar apparatus comprising each of these dependent claim components as set forth for example in at least the fig. 1, 4, 5, and 8-13 embodiments and their corresponding description. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the above teachings from Ederer into Barnes as providing the ability for additional temperature control to the Barnes device.
Interview Request
Applicant’s Representative is again encouraged to contact the Examiner directly should there be any questions or outstanding issues arising from the instant Office action, particularly if it is believed that a discussion will help to advance prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atul P. Khare whose telephone number is (571)270-7608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/Atul P. Khare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742