DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2-3 recite acronyms that have not been defined in the claims.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “MW” recited in claims 2-3, which appears to refer to “molecular weight”, is not defined in the instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Mee (US 20180127567 A1) in view of CN 110290907 A (to Fahimi et al.) – translation attached and relied upon below.
With respect to claims 1 and 10, van der Mee teaches a composition comprising pellets of a glass fiber-reinforced thermoplastic polymer composition comprising a sheathed continuous multifilament strand (para. [0047]-[0048]) comprising a core that extends in the longitudinal direction and a polymer sheath which intimately surrounds said core (para. [0047]-[0048]), wherein the core comprises at least one continuous glass multifilament strand (para. [0047]-[0048], [0053]-[0054]), the polymer sheath consists of a thermoplastic polymer composition comprising a polyolefin (para. [0053]-[0054]) and having a melt flow index as measured according to ISO1133-1:2011 (2.16kg/230°C) of 5-50 g/10 min (para. [0030]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of at least 1.0 dg/min and less than 47 dg/min, wherein the length of the glass filaments in the pellets is substantially the same as the pellet length, and is 2-50 mm (para. [0053]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 10 to 55 mm.
Product-by-process limitations (i.e. melt-mixing) are not given weight in product claims.
Van der Mee teaches the instantly claimed pellets, as set forth above, but fails to teach wherein the composition comprises the instantly claimed pellets in combination with a further propylene-based polymer, and wherein the further propylene-based polymer has a melt flow index as determined according to ISO1133-1:2011 (2.16kg/230°C) less than 20 dg/min. Fahimi et al. teaches making pellets/granules comprising a glass core and a polymer shell/jacket (page 5, lines 15-30, page 6, lines 3-18), and teaches wherein the pellets/granules are combined with a filling agent/(propylene) during extrusion, by which the pellets are melt-mixed/(heated-mixed-and extruded) with propylene as an alternative to incorporating the latter into the shell/jacket (page 12, lines 1-34), in order to enhance the molding process. Fahimi further teaches wherein the further propylene-based polymer has a melt flow index as determined according to ISO1133-1:2011 (2.16kg/230°C) of at least 20 g/10 min (page 6, lines 3-6), which touches the instantly claimed range of less than 20 dg/min.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to have the composition comprise the pellets of van der Mee in combination with a further propylene-based polymer, as taught by Fahimi, as an alternative to incorporating the propylene-based polymer into the shell/jacket in order to enhance the molding process.
With respect to claim 4, van der Mee teaches wherein the polyolefin comprises a propylene-based polymer and/or an elastomer of ethylene and an α-olefin comonomer having 4 to 8 carbon atoms, wherein the propylene-based polymer is at least one selected from the group consisting of a propylene homopolymer (para. [0029]), a propylene random copolymer and a heterophasic propylene copolymer (para. [0029]) and mixtures thereof.
With respect to claim 5, van der Mee teaches wherein the polyolefin comprises or consists of a propylene homopolymer (para. [0029]) having a melt flow index as measured according to ISO1133-1:2011 (2.16kg/230°C) of 5-50 g/10 min (para. [0030]), which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 25 to 50 dg/min, and a heterophasic propylene copolymer (para. [0029]) having a melt flow index as measured according to ISO1133- 1:2011 (2.16kg/230°C) of 5-50 g/10 min (para. [0030]), which touches the instantly claimed range of 0.1 to 5.0 dg/min.
With respect to claim 6, van der Mee teaches wherein the amount of the glass filaments is 10-40% (Table 3), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 20 to 70 wt% with respect to the sheathed continuous multifilament strand.
With respect to claim 7, van der Mee teaches wherein the thermoplastic polymer composition has a melt flow index as measured according to ISO1133-1:2011 (2.16kg/230°C) of 5-50 g/10 min (para. [0028]-[0030]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of at most 45 dg/min.
With respect to claim 8, van der Mee teaches wherein the further propylene-based polymer has a melt flow index as determined according to ISO1133-1:2011 (2.16kg/230°C) of 5-50 g/10 min (para. [0030]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range at least 0.1 dg/min and less than 20 dg/min.
With respect to claim 9, Fahimi further teaches wherein the mixture of the thermoplastic polymer composition of the polymer sheath of the pellets and the further propylene-based polymer has a melt flow index as determined according to ISO1133-1:2011 (2.16kg/230°C) of at least 20 g/10 min (page 6, lines 3-6), which touches the instantly claimed range of at least 1 dg/min and less than 20 dg/min.
With respect to claim 11, van der Mee teaches a process for preparing an extruded article by extruding the composition according to claim 1 (para. [0102]-[0103]).
With respect to claim 12, van der Mee teaches wherein the article is a hollow article or a sheet (para. [0102]-[0103]).
With respect to claim 13, van der Mee teaches wherein the amount of the glass filaments is 10-40% (Table 3), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range 20 to 70 wt% with respect to the extruded article.
With respect to claim 14, van der Mee teaches process for preparing a thermoformed article, comprising the process according to claim 11 to obtain the extruded article, wherein the extruded article is a sheet, and thermoforming the sheet (para. [0102]).
With respect to claim 16, van der Mee teaches an extruded article comprising or made by extruding the composition according to 1 (para. [0102]).
With respect to claim 17, van der Mee teaches wherein the article/plaque is a multiwall article having a largest dimension of 10 cm (or 100 mm) (para. [0135]), which falls within the instantly claimed range of largest dimension of at most 425 mm, and a wall thickness of 3 mm (para. [0135]), which touches the instantly claimed range of at most 3 mm, wherein the melt flow index as measured according to ISO1133-1:2011 (2.16kg/230°C) of the thermoplastic polymer composition of the polymer sheath has the melt flow index of the polymer is 5-50 g/10 min (para. [0030]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 10 to 15 dg/min.
With respect to claim 18, van der Mee teaches thermoformed article made by thermoforming the extruded article according to claim 16 (para. [0102]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Mee (US 20180127567 A1) in view of CN 110290907 A (to Fahimi et al.), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ge et al. (US 20200248046 A1).
With respect to claim 2, van der Mee discloses all claim limitations as set forth above including wherein the sheathed continuous multifilament strand comprises a polyethylene wax/(impregnating agent can comprise polyethylene wax) (para. [0065]) having a melting point of 60-90° C (para. [0066]), which falls within the instantly claimed range of 50 to 100 °C, in an amount of 0.5-7% (para. [0057]), which touches the instantly claimed range of less than 0.50 wt%, with respect to the sheathed continuous multifilament strand. Van der Mee fails to teach wherein polyethylene wax has a MW of 5 to 10 kg/mol and a MWD of 5 to 10. Ge et al. teaches that polyethylene wax can have a molecular weight of 2000 g/mol to 20,000 g/mol (para. [0053]), which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 5-10 Kg/mol, and a polydispersity index (MWD) of 2-10 (para. [0053]), which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 5-10.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention that the polyethylene wax in van der Mee can have a MW of 5 to 10 kg/mol and a MWD of 5 to 10, as taught by Ge al..
With respect to claim 3, van der Mee discloses all claim limitations as set forth above including wherein the sheathed continuous multifilament strand comprises a polyethylene wax/(impregnating agent can comprise polyethylene wax) (para. [0065]) having MW of at most 10 kg/mol in an amount of 0.5-7% (para. [0057]), which touches the instantly claimed range of less than 0.50 wt%, with respect to the sheathed continuous multifilament strand. Van der Mee fails to teach wherein polyethylene wax has a MW of 5 to 10 kg/mol and a MWD of 5 to 10. Ge et al. teaches that polyethylene wax can have a molecular weight (MW) of 2000 g/mol to 20,000 g/mol (para. [0053]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of MW of at most 10 kg/mol.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention that the polyethylene wax in van der Mee can have a MW of at most 10 kg/mol as taught by Ge al..
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van der Mee (US 20180127567 A1) in view of CN 110290907 A (to Fahimi et al.), as applied to claims 14 and 18 above, and further in view of Gaffney et al. (US 20010052479 A1).
With respect to claims 15 and 19, van der Mee discloses all claim limitations as set forth above including wherein the thermoformed article is a top cover (para. [0102]); but fails to teach wherein the top cover is in an article for covering battery components in an automotive prime-mover battery pack, wherein the top cover has an outer major surface and an inner major surface that is shaped to conform to the battery components. Gaffney teaches making a housing using thermoplastic material (para. [0019]-[0020]) comprising a top cover (Figure 2, 24) for covering battery components (Figure 3, 38) in an automotive prime-mover battery pack, wherein the top cover (24) has an outer major surface and an inner major surface that is shaped to conform to the battery components (para. [0019]-[0020]) (as illustrated) in order to provide a compact light-weight housing for the battery pack.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to have the top cover in van der Mee comprise a top cover in an article for covering battery components in an automotive prime-mover battery pack, wherein the top cover has an outer major surface and an inner major surface that is shaped to conform to the battery components, as taught by Gaffney, in order to provide a compact light-weight housing for a battery pack.
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, 3-16 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-12 and 15 of copending Application No. (18/703,594). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
With respect to claim 1, claims 1 & 9 of copending application teaches a composition made by melt-mixing pellets and a further propylene-based polymer, wherein the pellets are pellets of a glass fiber-reinforced thermoplastic polymer composition comprising a sheathed continuous multifilament strand comprising a core that extends in the longitudinal direction and a polymer sheath which intimately surrounds said core, wherein the core comprises at least one continuous glass multifilament strand, the polymer sheath consists of a thermoplastic polymer composition comprising a polyolefin and having a melt flow index as measured according to ISO1133-1:2011 (2.16kg/230°C) of at least 1.0 dg/min and less than 47 dg/min, wherein the length of the glass filaments in the pellets is substantially the same as the pellet length, and is 10 to 55 mm (see claim 1), wherein the further propylene-based polymer has a melt flow index as determined according to ISO1133-1:2011 (2.16kg/230°C) of less than 20 dg/min (see claim 9).
With respect to claim 3, claim 3 of copending application teaches wherein the sheathed continuous multifilament strand comprises a polyethylene wax having MW of at most 10 kg/mol in an amount of less than 0.50 wt%, with respect to the sheathed continuous multifilament strand.
With respect to claim 4, claim 4 of copending application teaches wherein the polyolefin comprises a propylene-based polymer and/or an elastomer of ethylene and an α-olefin comonomer having 4 to 8 carbon atoms, wherein the propylene-based polymer is at least one selected from the group consisting of a propylene homopolymer, a propylene random copolymer and a heterophasic propylene copolymer and mixtures thereof.
With respect to claim 5, claim 5 of copending application teaches wherein the polyolefin comprises or consists of a propylene homopolymer having a melt flow index as measured according to ISO1133-1:2011 (2.16kg/230°C) of 5-50 g/10 min, which encompasses the instantly claimed range of 25 to 50 dg/min, and a heterophasic propylene copolymer having a melt flow index as measured according to ISO1133- 1:2011 (2.16kg/230°C) of 0.1 to 5.0 dg/min.
With respect to claim 6, claim 6 of copending application teaches wherein the amount of the glass filaments is 20 to 70 wt% with respect to the sheathed continuous multifilament strand.
With respect to claim 7, claim 10 of copending application teaches wherein the thermoplastic polymer composition has a melt flow index as measured according to ISO1133-1:2011 (2.16kg/230°C) of at most 45 dg/min.
With respect to claim 8, claim 11 of copending application teaches wherein the further propylene-based polymer has a melt flow index as determined according to ISO1133-1:2011 (2.16kg/230°C) of at least 0.1 dg/min and less than 20 dg/min.
With respect to claim 9, claim 12 of copending application teaches wherein the mixture of the thermoplastic polymer composition of the polymer sheath of the pellets and the further propylene-based polymer has a melt flow index as determined according to ISO1133-1:2011 (2.16kg/230°C) of 5-50 g/10 min of at least 1 dg/min and less than 20 dg/min.
With respect to claim 10, claim 15 of copending application teaches a process for making a composition, comprising a process for preparing pellets of a glass fiber-reinforced thermoplastic polymer composition comprising a sheathed continuous multifilament strand comprising a core that extends in the longitudinal direction and a polymer sheath which intimately surrounds said core, comprising the sequential steps of: b) applying the polymer sheath of a thermoplastic polymer composition comprising a polyolefin around the at least one continuous glass multifilament strand to form a sheathed continuous multifilament strand, wherein the thermoplastic polymer composition has a melt flow index as measured according to ISO1133-1:2011 (2.16kg/230°C) of at least 1.0 dg/min and less than 47 dg/min and c) cutting the sheathed continuous glass multifilament strand to obtain the pellets, wherein the length of the glass filaments in the pellets is substantially the same as the pellet length, and is 10 to 55 mm, preferably 10 to 40 mm, more preferably 10 to 30 mm and most preferably from 10 to 20 mm, and melt-mixing the pellets and a further propylene-based polymer to obtain the composition, wherein the further propylene-based polymer has a melt flow index as measured according to ISO1133-1:2011 (2.16kg/230°C) of less than 20 dg/min.
With respect to claim 11, claim 15 of copending application teaches process for preparing an extruded article by extruding the composition according to claim 1.
With respect to claim 12, claim 7 of copending application teaches wherein the article is a hollow article or a sheet.
With respect to claim 13, claim 8 of copending application teaches wherein the amount of the glass filaments is 20 to 70 wt% with respect to the extruded article.
With respect to claim 14, claim 15 of copending application teaches a process for preparing a thermoformed article, comprising the process according to claim 1 to obtain the extruded article, wherein the extruded article is a sheet, and thermoforming the sheet.
With respect to claim 15, claim 7 of copending application teaches wherein the thermoformed article is a top cover in an article for covering battery components in an automotive prime-mover battery pack, wherein the top cover has an outer major surface and an inner major surface that is shaped to conform to the battery components.
With respect to claim 16, claim 1 of copending application teaches an extruded article comprising or made by extruding the composition according to claim 1.
With respect to claim 18, claim 1 of copending application teaches a thermoformed article made by thermoforming the extruded article according to claim 16.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-12 and 15 of copending Application No. (18/703,594), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of van der Mee (US 20180127567 A1).
With respect to claim 17, copending claims fails to teach wherein the article is a multiwall article having a largest dimension of at most 425 mm and a wall thickness of at most 3 mm, wherein the melt flow index as measured according to ISO1133-1:2011 (2.16kg/230°C) of the thermoplastic polymer composition of the polymer sheath has the melt flow index of the polymer is 10 to 15 dg/min.
Van der Mee teaches instant claim 1 as set forth in section 9 above and further teaches wherein the article/plaque is a multiwall article having a largest dimension of 10 cm (or 100 mm) (para. [0135]), which falls within the instantly claimed range of largest dimension of at most 425 mm, and a wall thickness of 3 mm (para. [0135]), which touches the instantly claimed range of at most 3 mm, wherein the melt flow index as measured according to ISO1133-1:2011 (2.16kg/230°C) of the thermoplastic polymer composition of the polymer sheath has the melt flow index of the polymer is 5-50 g/10 min (para. [0030]), which overlaps with the instantly claimed range of 10 to 15 dg/min in order to provide a durable article.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to form an article using the instant pellets wherein the article is a multiwall article having a largest dimension of at most 425 mm and a wall thickness of at most 3 mm, wherein the melt flow index as measured according to ISO1133-1:2011 (2.16kg/230°C) of the thermoplastic polymer composition of the polymer sheath has the melt flow index of the polymer is 10 to 15 dg/min, as taught by van der Mee, in order to provide a durable article.
Claim 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-12 and 15 of copending Application No. (18/703,594), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Gaffney et al. (US 20010052479 A1).
With respect to claim 19, claim 1 of copending application discloses all claim limitations as set forth above; but fails to teach wherein the thermoformed article is a top cover for covering battery components in an automotive prime-mover battery pack, wherein the top cover has an outer major surface and an inner major surface that is shaped to conform to the battery components. Gaffney teaches making a housing using thermoplastic material (para. [0019]-[0020]) comprising a top cover (Figure 2, 24) for covering battery components (Figure 3, 38) in an automotive prime-mover battery pack, wherein the top cover (24) has an outer major surface and an inner major surface that is shaped to conform to the battery components (para. [0019]-[0020]) (as illustrated) in order to provide a compact light-weight housing for the battery pack.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the invention to have the article in copending application comprise a top cover in an article for covering battery components in an automotive prime-mover battery pack, wherein the top cover has an outer major surface and an inner major surface that is shaped to conform to the battery components, as taught by Gaffney, in order to provide a compact light-weight housing for a battery pack.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITY V CHANDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KAITY V CHANDLER/ 3/4/2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725