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 Interpretation
1. 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.
2. 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:
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an adjusting unit for positioning the cutting cylinder along the cutting cylinder axis” in claim 24.
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 § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 14-17, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sumida (US 6669617). Regarding claim 14, Sumida teaches a separator capable of separating a film web region by region (Abstract), comprising:
an anvil plate which has a working surface for laying out an end region of a film web (“An impression cylinder (Anvil plate) 18 and a cut cylinder 19, which constitute a cut cylinder assembly 20, are arranged in an opposing manner with the paper web cut path 17 being interposed therebetween”; Col. 5 lines 29-34),
a conveyor linearly moveable with respect to the anvil plate along a conveying axis to carry out a laying-out movement for the end region of the film web, which laying-out movement is aligned parallel to the working surface (“Further, reference numeral 15 denotes a conveyer”; Col. 5 line 25 and Fig. 1 shows that conveyer linearly moveable with respect to the anvil plate), a cutting unit which has at least one cutting edge for carrying out a separating operation on the end region of the film web which is received between the cutting edge and the working surface, wherein the conveyor and the cutting unit carry out the lay out movement and the separating operation for the end region of the film web (“An impression cylinder (Anvil plate) 18 and a cut cylinder 19, which constitute a cut cylinder assembly 20, are arranged in an opposing manner with the paper web cut path 17 being interposed therebetween”; Col. 5 lines 29-34).
Regarding claim 15, Sumida teaches the separator according to claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein the conveyor is moveable between a first conveying position with a first, minimum distance relative to a front edge of the anvil plate aligned transversely to the conveying axis and a second conveying position with a second, maximum distance relative to the front edge of the anvil plate, and wherein the cutting unit is moveable between a rest position with a third, maximum distance relative to the front edge and a working position with a fourth, minimum working distance relative to the front edge (“These structures are substantially the same as conventional structures. Further, reference numeral 15 denotes a conveyer”; Col. 2 Lines 46-51). It is known in the art that conveyers are movable and have a start of the conveyer and an end of the conveyer.
Regarding claim 16, Sumida teaches the separator according to claim 15 (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein the conveyor comprises a transport cylinder having a transport cylinder axis which is aligned transversely to the conveying axis and parallel to the working surface to carry out the conveying operation with a linear movement along the conveying axis and/or with a rotational movement about the transport cylinder axis (“A paper web guide path 40 is arranged on the upstream side of the paper web cut path 17, and the paper web guide path 40 includes pull rollers (Transport cylinders) 16, 37, a compensation roller 38, and guide rollers 39a, 39b”; Col. 6 lines 22-25).
Regarding claim 17, Sumida teaches the separator according to claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the cutting unit comprises a cutting cylinder having a cutting cylinder axis aligned transversely to the conveying axis and parallel to the working surface to carry out the separating operation with a superimposition of a linear movement along the conveying axis and a rotational movement about the cutting cylinder axis, the cutting edge being attached to an outer surface of the cutting cylinder (“Also, a full-edge-type cutting blade 27, having a length extending over the full length of the cut cylinder 19, is fitted in the groove 28 and secured by a push plate 29 and a push bolt 30. The cutting blade 27 projects outward from the peripheral surface of the cut cylinder 19 by a length corresponding to a clearance S between the impression cylinder 18 and the
cutcylinder 19”; Col. 5 lines 55-62).
Regarding claim 19, Sumida teaches the separator according to claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the transport cylinder is assigned a sensor for detecting a front edge of the end region of the film web and/or wherein the cutting cylinder is assigned a sensor for detecting a position of the cutting edge, and/or wherein a sensor for detecting properties of the film web is arranged in the region of the front edge of the anvil plate (“A mark sensor 41 is disposed at a position close to the guide roller 39b between the pull roller 16 and the compensation roller 38 of the paper web guide path 40”; Col. 6 lines 25-28).
Regarding claim 21, Sumida teaches the separator according to claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein the cutting edge of the cutting unit and the working surface of the anvil plate allow a separating operation for the end region of the film web from the group: transverse cutting of the film web, cutting out of film cutouts from the film web, crush cutting, lifting punching, shear cutting (“Also, a full-edge-type cutting blade 27, having a length extending over the full length of the cut cylinder 19, is fitted in the groove 28 and secured by a push plate 29 and a push bolt 30. The cutting blade 27 projects outward from the peripheral surface of the cut cylinder 19 by a length corresponding to a clearance S between the impression cylinder 18 and the cutcylinder 19”; Col. 5 lines 55-62).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumida (US 6669617) in view of Huntwork (US 3459420). Regarding claim 18, Sumida teaches the separator according to claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above), however Sumida is silent regarding a separator wherein the working surface has a planar bearing region for the end region of the film web and wherein bearing strips which adjoin the planer bearing region on both sides, extend along the conveying axis and project in a raised manner from the bearing region, and wherein the cutting cylinder rests with an outer surface on the bearing strips at least in regions when the movement between the rest position and the working position is carried out. Huntwork teaches a sheet processing machine, wherein bearing strips which adjoin the bearing region on both sides, extend along the conveying axis and project in a raised manner from the bearing region, and wherein the cutting cylinder rests with an outer surface on the bearing strips at least in regions when the movement between the rest position and the working position is carried out (“bearing strips 24a are provided over which the rollers of the chains roll”; Col 2. Lines 46-51). Bearings are known in the art to reduce friction between a moving body and a stationary body. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to add the bearing strips taught by Huntwork to the separator taught by Sumida in order to reduce the friction between the cutting cylinder and the supporting member.
7. Claim 20, 23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumida (US 6669617) in view of Wittmair (20070173396).
Regarding claim 20, Sumida teaches the separator according to claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), however Sumida is silent regarding a separator wherein at least one mouth opening of a fluid channel is formed on the working surface and/or on an outer surface of the conveyor and/or on an outer surface of the cutting unit. Wittmair teaches a separator wherein at least one mouth opening of a fluid channel is formed on the working surface and/or on an outer surface of the conveyor and/or on an outer surface of the cutting unit (“Each stacking means 22-27 has a vacuum wheel 28 and vacuum belts 29”; Para. [0012]). Vacuum wheels/belts are known in the art to hold an item to the wheel/belt by creating a slight vacuum though fluid flow internal to the wheel/belt. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to use the vacuum belt taught by Wittmair as the belt in the separator taught by Sumida in order to keep the material on the belt though the use of a vacuum.
Regarding claim 23, Sumida teaches the separator according to claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), however Sumida is silent regarding a separator wherein a gripper is arranged on the anvil plate so as to be relatively movable for a removal of good parts into defined deposit position and/or for a removal of waste.
Wittmair teaches a separator wherein a gripper is arranged on the anvil plate so as to be relatively movable for a removal of good parts into defined deposit position and/or for a removal of waste (“Each stacking means 22-27 has a vacuum wheel 28 and vacuum belts 29”; Para [0012]). Vacuum wheels/belts are known in the art to hold an item to the wheel/belt by creating a slight vacuum though fluid flow internal to the wheel/belt. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to use the vacuum wheel taught by Wittmair as the anvil plate in the separator taught by Sumida in order to keep the material on the wheel though the use of a vacuum.
Regarding claim 25, Sumida teaches a separating apparatus capable of performing the method of cutting a film web region by region (abstract), comprising the steps: detecting an end region of a film web laid out on a working surface of an anvil plate with a transport cylinder (“In the state mentioned above, when a cut mark on to the continuous paper web 1 is detected by the mark sensor 41”; Col. 7 lines 38-42), performing a first winding movement for the end region of the film web onto the transport cylinder during a first linear retracting movement of the transport cylinder (Fig. 1 shows the material being wound over the transport cylinders), detecting an end edge of the end region of the film web, which end edge is arranged on the transport cylinder, with a sensor (“In the state mentioned above, when a cut mark on to the continuous paper web 1 is detected by the mark sensor 41”; Col. 7 lines 38-42), and controlling a second rewinding movement for the transport cylinder at a first conveying position at which the transport cylinder has a first, minimum distance from a first end region of the anvil plate (Fig 1. Shows a second movement with the transport cylinder being a minimum distance from the anvil plate), performing a combination of an unwinding movement and a second linear advancing movement for the transport cylinder along the working surface of the anvil plate for depositing the end region of the film web on the working surface (Fig. 1 shows the material being unwound in moving in at least two linear directions prior to the material being deposited on the working surface), and performing a second linear retracting movement of the transport cylinder to the first conveying position (Fig. 1 shows the transport cylinder linearly moving the material to the conveying position), performing a combination of an unwinding movement and a third linear advancing movement for a cutting cylinder along the working surface of the anvil plate between a rest position with maximum distance from the first end region of the anvil plate and a working position with minimum distance from the first end region of the anvil plate (“An impression cylinder (Anvil plate) 18 and a cut cylinder 19, which constitute a cut cylinder assembly 20, are arranged in an opposing manner with the paper web cut path 17 being interposed therebetween”; Col. 5 lines 29-34 and Fig. 1 shows a third linear movement during the unwinding of the material), wherein a cutting edge of the cutting cylinder performs a cutting operation for an end region of the film web received between the cutting edge and the working surface (“An impression cylinder (Anvil plate) 18 and a cut cylinder 19, which constitute a cut cylinder assembly 20, are arranged in an opposing manner with the paper web cut path 17 being interposed therebetween”; Col. 5 lines 29-34).
However, Sumida is silent regarding a method in which a separator is gripping and transporting away a portion of the end region of the film web cut from the cutting edge by means of a gripping device mounted movably on the anvil plate. Wittmair teaches a method in which a separator is gripping and transporting away a portion of the end region of the film web cut from the cutting edge by means of a gripping device mounted movably on the anvil plate (“Each stacking means 22-27 has a vacuum wheel 28 and vacuum belts 29”; Para [0012]). Vacuum wheels/belts are known in the art to hold an item to the wheel/belt by creating a slight vacuum though fluid flow internal to the wheel/belt. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to use the vacuum wheel taught by Wittmair as the anvil plate in the separator taught by Sumida in order to keep the material on the wheel though the use of a vacuum during the method of separating.
Regarding claim 26, Sumida in view of Wittmair teaches the method according to claim 25 (see rejection of claim 25 above), however, Sumida is silent regarding a separating method wherein the end region of a film web is gripped by the transport cylinder to make a first linear feed movement for the transport cylinder along a working surface of the anvil plate for laying out the end region of the film web on the working surface.
Wittmair teaches a separating apparatus used in a method of separating materials wherein the end region of a film web is gripped by the transport cylinder to make a first linear feed movement for the transport cylinder along a working surface of the anvil plate for laying out the end region of the film web on the working surface (“Each stacking means 22-27 has a vacuum wheel 28 and vacuum belts 29”; Para [0012]).
Vacuum wheels/belts are known in the art to hold an item to the wheel/belt by creating a slight vacuum though fluid flow internal to the wheel/belt. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to use the vacuum wheel taught by Wittmair as the anvil plate in the separator taught by Sumida in order to keep the material on the wheel though the use of a vacuum during the method of separating.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because they focus on distinctions that are not recited in claim 14 and overlook the express teachings of Sumida. Claim 14 does not require that the conveyor be mounted in any particular mechanical arrangement relative to the cutting unit, such as being a cantilevered conveyor or having a specific support structure. Rather, claim 14 merely recites “a conveyor linearly moveable with respect to the anvil plate along a conveying axis to carry out a laying-out movement for the end region of the film web” and further recites that “the conveyor and the cutting unit carry out the lay out movement and the separating operation for the end region of the film web.” Sumida teaches these features.
As explained above, Sumida discloses a conveyer 15 for transporting the paper web and a cut cylinder assembly 20 including an impression cylinder 18 and a cut cylinder 19. The impression cylinder 18 functions as the claimed anvil plate because it provides a working surface against which the paper web is received during the cutting operation. Sumida further teaches that the cut cylinder 19 includes a cutting blade 27 having a blade edge 27a for separating the paper web while the web is positioned between the cut cylinder 19 and the impression cylinder 18. Thus, Sumida discloses a cutting unit having at least one cutting edge performing a separating operation on a web region received between the cutting edge and a working surface.
Applicant asserts that Sumida’s cut cylinder operates continuously and that the shooter assembly performs the folding operation, but this distinction does not distinguish claim 14. Claim 14 does not require that the cutting operation be performed only after a separate conveyor movement or that the conveyor and cutting unit be structurally independent. Instead, the claim requires that the conveyor and cutting unit carry out the respective laying-out movement and separating operation. Sumida’s conveyor advances the web along the web traveling path, while the cut cylinder assembly performs the separating operation at the cutting location. These components necessarily cooperate to transport and separate the web region by region.
Applicant further argues that Sumida does not disclose that the conveyor is “mounted in a linear manner relative to the impression cylinder and cut cylinder.” However, claim 14 does not recite that the conveyor is mounted relative to the impression cylinder and cut cylinder. The claim only recites that the conveyor is linearly moveable with respect to the anvil plate along a conveying axis. Sumida’s conveyor 15 conveys the paper web along the paper web traveling path toward and through the cut cylinder assembly, which inherently provides linear movement of the web relative to the impression cylinder working surface. Applicant’s proposed limitation requiring a particular mounting arrangement or alternating cantilever movement is not supported by the language of claim 14.
Applicant also alleges that Sumida fails to disclose alternating execution of a laying-out movement and a cutting operation for an end region of a film web. However, claim 14 does not recite that the laying-out movement and separating operation must alternate in a particular sequence, nor does it require a cantilever movement. Anticipation is determined based on the scope of the claim language, not on unrecited embodiments or intended operating principles. Accordingly, Sumida discloses an anvil surface, a conveyor transporting the web, and a cutting unit including a cutting edge that separates the web while the web is positioned against the anvil surface. The conveyor and cutting unit cooperate to carry out the laying-out and separating operations recited in claim 14.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to claim 25 are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that Sumida fails to disclose “controlling a second rewinding movement for the transport cylinder at a first conveying position at which the transport cylinder has a first, minimum distance from a first end region of the anvil plate.” However, Applicant’s argument is based on an unduly narrow interpretation of the claim language and imports limitations that are not recited in claim 25. Claim 25 does not require any particular control algorithm, a separately identifiable rewinding mechanism, or a specific sequence of controller operations. Rather, the claim broadly recites transporting, rewinding, depositing, and repositioning the web relative to the cutting assembly. As set forth above, Sumida discloses a paper web traveling path including pull rollers, guide rollers, an impression cylinder 18, and a cut cylinder 19. The paper web is conveyed, positioned, and redirected through the transport path before and during the cutting operation. The web necessarily undergoes winding and unwinding relative to the transport cylinders as it is advanced through the apparatus, and the movement of the web is controlled in response to detection of a cut mark by mark sensor 41 (col. 7, lines 38-42). Thus, Sumida teaches controlling the transport of the web to position it for the cutting operation.
Applicant further argues that Sumida does not disclose “that a cutting edge of the cutting cylinder performs a cutting operation for an end region of the film web received between the cutting edge and the working surface.” This argument is not persuasive because Sumida expressly discloses that impression cylinder 18 and cut cylinder 19 are arranged in opposition with the paper web disposed therebetween (col. 5, lines 29-34). Sumida further discloses that cutting blade 27, including blade edge 27a, is mounted on cut cylinder 19 and performs the cutting operation while the web is positioned between cut cylinder 19 and impression cylinder 18. Accordingly, Sumida teaches a cutting edge performing a cutting operation on a web received between the cutting edge and the opposing working surface as recited in claim 25.
Applicant’s assertion that Sumida’s cut cylinder “operates continuously” likewise does not distinguish the claimed invention. Claim 25 does not require intermittent operation of the cutting cylinder, nor does it exclude continuous rotation. The claim merely requires movement of the cutting cylinder to perform the cutting operation. Sumida’s rotating cut cylinder performs precisely this function.
Applicant also argues that neither Sumida nor Wittmair discloses or suggests the claimed combination. However, this argument does not address the actual basis of the rejection. The rejection relies on Sumida for teaching the web transport, positioning, detection, and cutting operations, including the cutting edge cooperating with the impression cylinder. Wittmair is relied upon only for the additional limitation of “gripping and transporting away a portion of the end region of the film web cut from the cutting edge by means of a gripping device mounted movably on the anvil plate.” Specifically, Wittmair teaches vacuum wheels 28 and vacuum belts 29 that grip and transport separated sheet portions by vacuum. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the vacuum gripping arrangement taught by Wittmair into the separator of Sumida in order to securely retain and transport the cut web portion after separation, thereby improving handling of the separated material. Such a modification merely substitutes one known gripping mechanism for another known material-handling technique to achieve the predictable result of reliably transporting the separated web portion. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments attacking Sumida alone do not address the combination actually relied upon in the rejection. Sumida teaches the claimed transport and cutting operations, while Wittmair teaches the gripping and transporting-away limitation.
Conclusion
9. All claims are either identical to or patentably indistinct from claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (571) 272-4502. 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights