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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Claims 1-6 (Group I) in the reply filed on 9/12/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 7-20 (Groups II and III) are withdrawn from further consideration per Applicant’s request (9/12/2025).
Drawings
The drawings (Figs. 3a, 3b, 16a, 16b) are objected.
The objected drawings contain no descriptive legends to convey the scope and facilitate understanding of the invention without constantly referring back to the Specification, which complicate the understanding of the invention considering the amount of method steps shown in the drawings (for example, in Fig.2A, 20 method steps are present) (please refer to 37 C.F.R. 1.84 9 (o)).
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 1-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to Claim 1, the limitation feature “…said model signal waveform being assignable to a work progress of the hand-held power tool” is indefinite because it is unclear what the patentable boundaries of this limitation are. This limitation feature describes intended use result without clear boundaries. No patentable distinction is made by an intended use or result unless some structural difference is imposed by the use or result on the structure or material recited in the claim, or some manipulative difference is imposed by the use or result on the action recited in the claim.
Additionally, the above limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what the meaning of “assignable model signal waveform” is. It is unclear whether it relates to applicability of the model itself or a signal generated by the model and what is the meaning of “assignable” with regards to a waveform signal? The Specification is silent on this feature.
For the purpose of a compact prosecution, the Examiner broadly interpreted “assignability” of the model signal waveform as a model that (adequately/accurately) incorporate operational parameters reflecting work progress/work flow of a hand-held power tool.
With regards to Claim 1, the limitation “…(S1) providing comparative information, having the steps of: (Sla) providing at least one model signal waveform, said model signal waveform being assignable to a work progress of the hand-held power tool, and (S1b) providing a threshold of a match; (S2) ascertaining a signal of an operational variable of the electric motor; (S3) analyzing the comparative information and the signal of an operational variable, having the method steps of: (S3a) comparing the signal of the operational variable with the model signal waveform and ascertaining a match signal from the comparison, and (S3b) ascertaining a match evaluation, said match evaluation being carried out at least partly using the threshold of the match and using the match signal …” is indefinite because it is unclear what is a “comparative information” and “match signal”. It is unclear whether the “match signal” is the same as “match evaluation” or whether the “match signal” includes signals that are matched such as “comparative information” and “operation variable” signals.
For the purpose of a compact prosecution, the Examiner broadly interpreted “comparative information” as any information to be compared (model signal waveform, operational variable signal) and the “match signal” as evaluation signal.
With regards to Claim 6, the limitation “the match evaluation in method step (S3b) is carried out at least partly on the basis of a sum signal of the match signal and the frequency of the signal of the operational variable” is indefinite as it is unclear how and why the “sum” of two parameters may be obtained when they represent different physical terms. The Examiner was unable to find in the disclosure that the “match signal” is a frequency signal and/or any reasoning for this sum used in evaluation step.
For the purpose of a compact prosecution, the Examiner broadly interpreted this limitation as “the match evaluation in method step (S3b) is carried out at least partly on the basis of a sum signal as a sum of the frequency of the signal of the operational variable and a deviation corresponding to this frequency”. Such interpretation is partially supported by the Specification as published ([0066]: “Depending on a degree of matching or a deviation of the comparison …”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
“A method for operating a hand-held power tool, the hand-held power tool having an electric motor, the method comprising:
providing comparative information including
(i) at least one model signal waveform corresponding to a work progress of the hand-held power tool, and
(ii) a threshold of a match between the at least one model signal waveform and a signal of an operational variable of the electric motor;
ascertaining the signal of the operational variable of the electric motor during the work progress of the hand-held power tool;
analyzing the comparative information and the signal of the operational variable, by comparing the signal of the operational variable with the at least one model signal waveform to determine when the threshold of the match is met and
outputting a match signal based on the comparison;
detecting the work progress by automatically evaluating the match signal; and
operating the electric motor of the hand-held power tool based on the detected work progress to complete the work progress of the hand-held power tool, wherein the at least one model signal waveform is a function having values that change according to a continuous progress of the work progress from a beginning of the work progress to a completion of the work progress.”
“A method for operating a hand-held power tool, the hand-held power tool having an electric motor, the method comprising: (S1) providing comparative information, having the steps of: (S1a) providing at least one model signal waveform, said model signal waveform being assignable to a work progress of the hand-held power tool, and (S1b) providing a threshold of a match; (S2) ascertaining a signal of an operational variable of the electric motor; (S3) analyzing the comparative information and the signal of an operational variable, having the method steps of: (S3a) comparing the signal of the operational variable with the model signal waveform and ascertaining a match signal from the comparison, and (S3b) ascertaining a match evaluation, said match evaluation being carried out at least partly using the threshold of the match and using the match signal; and (S4) detecting the work progress at least partly using the match evaluation ascertained in step (S3), wherein said comparative information being provided at least partly on the basis of an automatic evaluation of the match signal.”
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “the at least one model signal waveform is a function having values that change according to a continuous progress of the work progress from a beginning of the work progress to a completion of the work progress” are treated as belonging to the mathematical concepts grouping while the steps of “ascertaining the signal of the operational variable of the electric motor during the work progress of the hand-held power tool; analyzing the comparative information and the signal of the operational variable, by comparing the signal of the operational variable with the at least one model signal waveform to determine when the threshold of the match is met, outputting a match signal based on the comparison; detecting the work progress by automatically evaluating the match signal” is treated as belonging to mental process grouping. These mental steps represent a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. This step in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually observing/evaluating/comparing the signal of the operation variable with available model signal waveform and judging whether there is a match and further, evaluating the match, and correspondingly detecting work progress (“judgement” step) based on observed evaluated match. Some of these mental processing steps may occur together with mathematical concept steps as discussed in the Specification.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
The above claim comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: A method for operating a hand-held power tool, the hand-held power tool having an electric motor, the method comprising: providing comparative information including (i) at least one model signal waveform corresponding to a work progress of the hand-held power tool, and (ii) a threshold of a match between the at least one model signal waveform and a signal of an operational variable of the electric motor; outputting a match signal; operating the electric motor of the hand-held power tool based on the detected work progress to complete the work progress of the hand-held power tool.
The additional elements in the preamble are recited in generality and represent insignificant extra-solution activity (field-of-use limitations) that is not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The additional elements in the claim such as providing comparative information including (i) at least one model signal waveform corresponding to a work progress of the hand-held power tool, and (ii) a threshold of a match between the at least one model signal waveform and a signal of an operational variable of the electric motor are not meaningful limitations that would indicate a practical application. These steps are recited in generality and correspond to mere data gathering of insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. According to the October update on 2019 SME Guidance such steps are “performed in order to gather data for the mental analysis step, and is a necessary precursor for all uses of the recited exception. It is thus extra-solution activity, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”.
The steps of outputting a match signal as well as operating the electric motor of the hand-held power tool based on the detected work progress to complete the work progress of the hand-held power tool correspond to insignificant extra-solution activity as recited in generality and not meaningful.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because these additional elements/steps are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art based on the prior art of record.
The independent claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-6 and 22 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claim and/or recite additional elements that are not meaningful and, therefore, these claims are not patent eligible without additional elements that reflect a practical application and/or qualified for significantly more for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to Claim 1.
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joachim Schadow et al. (DE 102017206064), hereinafter ‘Schadow’ in view of HANAMURA; Kenji et al. (US 20220193867), hereinafter ‘Hanamura’.
With regards to Claim 1, Schadow discloses
A method for operating a hand-held power tool (a method for monitoring a work progress of a construction site … based on the acquired operating parameters, parameters that are relevant to the work progress are determined, Abstract), the hand-held power tool having an electric motor (A hand-held power tool is to be understood in particular as a hand-held, power-driven tool for processing material and surfaces, p.1), the method comprising:
providing comparative information including
(i) at least one signal corresponding to a work progress of the hand-held power tool (It is proposed that, based on the acquired operating parameters, parameters that are relevant to the work progress are determined, p.1), and (ii) a threshold of a match between the at least one signal and a signal of an operational variable of the electric motor (it is proposed that the parameters are compared with a plane size. Advantageously, the monitoring can be improved thereby. The planned size represents in particular parameters related to a planned work progress … it is proposed that an error information is output if the parameters deviate from the plane size by a threshold value, p.3; an error information is output if the characteristics differ from the plane size by a threshold value, Claim 6);
ascertaining the signal of the operational variable of the electric motor during the work progress of the hand-held power tool (at least one operating parameter is detected via the detection unit, from which at least one parameter relating to the service life of the handheld power tool can be derived, p.1);
analyzing the comparative information and the signal of the operational variable by comparing the signal of the operational variable with the at least one signal to determine when the threshold of the match is met (The procedure includes those already in 2 described method steps and additionally a step 112 , in which after the determination of the characteristic by the evaluation unit 14 and storing in the step 106 the determined parameter is compared with a planned value, p.4); and
outputting a match signal based on the comparison (If the work progress does not go to plan, will be advantageous in one step 114 an error information about the display unit 16 displayed, p.4);
detecting the work progress by automatically evaluating the match signal (a parameter which is relevant to the work progress should be understood in particular to be a parameter determined from at least one operating parameter, by means of which a person skilled in the art can monitor or assess the work progress on a construction site. The parameters are determined based on the operating parameters of the detection unit, the evaluation unit or the display unit and stored on the evaluation unit, p.2);
operating the electric motor of the hand-held power tool based on the detected work progress to complete the work progress of the hand-held power tool (A method for monitoring a work progress of a construction site, wherein in the area of the construction site at least one detection unit (12) is arranged, which detects at least one operating parameter of a hand tool (10) and transmitted to an evaluation unit (14), characterized in that based on the detected operating parameters Characteristics are determined that are relevant to the work progress, Claim 1, “monitoring work progress … based on the detected operating parameters” implies “operating the electric motor of the hand-held power tool based on the detected work progress”, emphasis added);
and wherein the at least one signal is a function having values that change according to a continuous progress of the work progress (the detection unit can have a position determination element which, for example, determines the position of the handheld power tool via GPS. It is also conceivable that a change in position via integrated sensors, such as an acceleration sensor, is detected. In this context, a change of the position is to be understood, in particular, as meaning a change in the position of the handheld power tool by moving the handheld power tool in the plane and / or in the height. Advantageously, at least one operating parameter is detected by the detection unit, from which at least one parameter can be derived based on the type of product, p.2) from a beginning of the work progress to a completion of the work progress (implied).
However, Schadow is silent with regards to providing at least one model signal waveform corresponding to a work progress and the claimed steps based on such signal waveform that includes analyzing the comparative information and the signal of the operational variable, by comparing the signal of the operational variable with the at least one model signal waveform to determine when the threshold of the match is met and outputting a match signal based on the comparison; detecting the work progress by automatically evaluating the match signal; and wherein the at least one model signal waveform is a function having values that change according to a continuous progress of the work progress from a beginning of the work progress to a completion of the work progress.
Hanamura discloses providing at least one model signal waveform corresponding to a work progress (The model waveform of the d-axis current and the model waveform of the q-axis current may each be, for example, a waveform pattern in a period including at least one of a period just before an impact operation is started and a period right after the impact operation has been performed [0104]).
Hanamura also discloses analyzing the comparative information and the signal of the operational variable, by comparing the signal of the operational variable with the at least one model signal waveform to determine when the threshold of the match is met and outputting a match signal based on the comparison; detecting the work progress by automatically evaluating the match signal; and wherein the at least one model signal waveform is a function having values that change according to a continuous progress of the work progress from a beginning of the work progress to a completion of the work progress (An impact detecting unit 49 according to this third variation determines, based on the waveform of at least one of the current measured value id1 of the d-axis current or the current measured value iq1 of the q-axis current, whether or not the impact operation is being performed. More specifically, the impact detecting unit 49 compares the current measured value id1 with a model waveform of the d-axis current and also compares the current measured value iq1 with a model waveform of the q-axis current. The impact detecting unit 49 detects, when finding at least one of the degree of matching between the current measured value id1 and its model waveform or the degree of matching between the current measured value iq1 and its model waveform equal to or greater than a predetermined value, that an impact operation is being performed. [0103]; The more significantly the magnitude of the d-axis current changes before and after the impact operation, the more heavily the first decision result may be weighted. In the same way, the more significantly the magnitude of the q-axis current changes before and after the impact operation, the more heavily the second decision result may be weighted. Furthermore, the less significant the variation in the average of the current measured value id1 is, the more heavily the first decision result may be weighted. Likewise, the less significant the variation in the average of the current measured value iq1 is, the more heavily the second decision result may be weighted [0101]; Optionally, the impact detecting unit 49 may determine, by changing the model waveforms to use according to a parameter such as the magnitude of a torque applied to the AC motor 15 or the number of revolutions of the AC motor 15, whether or not the impact operation is being performed [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schadow in view of Hanamura to provide at least one model signal waveform corresponding to a work progress and use the claimed steps based on such model signal waveform, similarly to using planned parameters, to dynamically track work progress (impact mechanism) of an electric power tool (Optionally, the impact detecting unit 49 may determine, by changing the model waveforms to use according to a parameter such as the magnitude of a torque applied to the AC motor 15 or the number of revolutions of the AC motor 15, whether or not the impact operation is being performed, Hanamura [0105]) instead of the predetermined planned parameters (The planned value includes exemplary information about a minimum service life of the power tool 10 depending on the time and place, Schadow, p.4).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schadow in view of Hanamura, in further view of Masahiko Sako et al. (US 20180272511), hereinafter ‘Sako’.
With regards to Claim 4, Schadow is silent comparing the signal of the operational variable with the at least one model signal waveform includes determining frequency of the signal of the operational variable as a function of a frequency threshold.
Sako discloses that comparing the signal of the operational variable with the at least one model signal waveform includes a frequency of the signal of the operational variable as a function of a frequency threshold (A magnitude of the evaluation signal E outputted from the envelope detector 48 indicates a magnitude of the signal component corresponding to the reference frequency in the variable signal [0086]), i.e. “a function of a frequency threshold”, emphasis added.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schadow in view of Hanamura, and Sako that the comparing the signal of the operational variable with the at least one model signal waveform would include a frequency of the signal of the operational variable as a function of a frequency threshold as controlling parameter (Sako [0086]).
With regards to Claim 5, Schadow is silent regarding determining a logical linkage of the match signal and the frequency of the signal of the operational variable.
Sako discloses a logical linkage of the match signal and the frequency of the signal of the operational variable (the evaluation signal (i.e. “match signal”, emphasis added), which is the envelope of the signal component corresponding to the reference frequency, can be obtained from the variable signal outputted from the signal converter 28 [0110]).
Sako also discloses a logic-based algorithm (Fig. 5, comparators 92 and 94).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schadow in view of Hanamura, and Sako to logically link the match signal and the frequency of the signal of the operational variable to automatically evaluate corresponding signals (According to the above configuration, whether the fastener has been seated or not can be determined accurately by setting the predetermined reference frequency in accordance with the rotational speed of the hammer, Sako [0035]).
With regards to Claim 6, Schadow is silent regarding determining a sum signal based on of the match signal and the frequency of the signal of the operational variable.
Sako discloses generating and using a deviation signal in matching/evaluation [0050].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schadow in view of Hanamura, and Sako to determine a sum signal based on of the match signal and the frequency of the signal of the operational variable interpreted as a standard deviation added to the frequency of operational variable that would define an evaluation range for matching.
Claims 2, 3, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schadow in view of Hanamura, and further in view of Atsushi Morimura et al. (US 5768404), hereinafter ‘Morimura’.
With regards to Claim 2, Schadow in view of Hanamura discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 1.
With regards to Claim 3, Schadow in view of Hanamura discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 2.
With regards to Claim 22, Schadow in view of Hanamura discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 1.
However, Schadow does not specifically disclose wherein the automatic evaluation of the match signal includes ascertaining a gradient of the match signal (Claim 2), wherein the threshold of the match is determined based on the gradient of the match signal (Claim 3).
Schadow also does not specifically disclose wherein the values of the function of the at least one model signal waveform includes discontinuities (Claim 22).
Morimura discloses the evaluation of the match signal includes ascertaining a gradient of the match signal (The evaluation value J in [Equation 3] is obtained by normalizing the degree of matching in correlation computation by the luminance gradient, that is, by the characteristic amount of the luminance distribution within the block, Col.6, Lines 33-35), evaluating (image) based on a gradient (evaluating the reliability of the result of estimation by block matching on the basis of a luminance gradient, Abstract), and using thresholds in evaluation (Claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schadow in view of Hanamura, and Morimura to perform the evaluation of the match signal based on ascertained gradient as known in the art (evaluating the reliability of the result of estimation by block matching on the basis of the luminance gradient, Morimura, Col.2, Lines 21-23) using a threshold of the match that is determined based on the gradient of the match signal (by adaptively varying the block size to be selected according to the magnitude of the luminance gradient and the distribution of estimation, motion and depth are estimated with good accuracy, Morimura, Col.3, Lines 14-17).
Morimura discloses using discontinuities in matching (Col.1, Lines 40-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schadow in view of Hanamura, and Morimura to include discontinuities in the values of the function of the at least one model signal waveform using matching as known in the art (Morimura).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (p.10): In this response, the claims have been amended to integrate the detected work progress into the operation of the hand-held power tool (i.e., a practical application). Specifically, claim 1 requires operating the electric motor of the hand- held power tool based on the detected work progress to complete the work progress of the hand- held power tool. Operating the electric motor is not a mental process or a mathematical concept. Moreover, as described at paragraph [0018] of the Applicant's specification, the claimed approach facilitates operation of the hand-held power tool in that no adjustment of parameters is required on the part of the user during the work progress. This benefits the user by making the tool easier to use and also provides better results. Based on the above, the recited method recites an improvement in the technology of operating a hand-held power tool.
The amended claims integrate any recited judicial exception into a practical application.
While the Examiner agrees that “Operating the electric motor is not a mental process or a mathematical concept”, this amended “operating” step is recited in generality and not meaningful to indicate a practical application. The improvement argument is not persuasive as the improvement should be demonstrated by meaningful additional elements recited in the claims.
In addition, it is known in the art to operate hand-held power tools without manually adjusting parameters (Schadow, Siegel, Abbott).
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jonathan Abbott et al. (US 11221611) discloses a power tool includes a housing and a sensor, a machine learning controller, a motor, and an electronic controller supported by the housing. The electronic controller is configured to receive the output from the machine learning controller and automatically control the motor based on the output.
Alexander Manasseh et al. (US 20180290270) discloses a power tool using electric motor. The disclosure relates to control schemes for driving a brushless DC motor in a power tool, and in particular to driving a brushless DC motor from an AC power supply.
Robert P. Siegel (US 6571179) discloses an intelligent power tool system using an electric motor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863