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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 8 August 2023, 16 June 2025, and 9 July 2025 have been considered.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
The term “in the vicinity” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in the vicinity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The quantity associated with the .
Claim 20, lines 3-5, recite “both a peak in the vicinity of 39.5° and a peak in the vicinity of 49.5° include a synthetic peak of the 2H crystal structure and the 3R crystal structure, and a half width is 1° or more”. It is unclear if the half width is referring to one of the peaks or both of the peaks. This limitation is interpreted as requiring both the peak in the vicinity of 39.5° and the peak in the vicinity of 49.5° have a half width of 1° or more. It is further unclear what is required by the limitation “include a synthetic peak of the 2H crystal structure and the 3R crystal structure”. This limitation is interpreted as requiring a peak in the vicinity of 39.5° and a peak in the vicinity of 49.5°, wherein both peaks have a half width of 1° or more, which indicates the XRD includes a synthetic peak of the 2H crystal structure and the 3R crystal structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 18, 21-23, and 25-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (CN 111701597) as evidenced by Toh ("3R phase of MoS2 and WS2 outperforms the corresponding 2H phase for hydrogen evolution").
Regarding Claim 18, Gong discloses a multi-metal doped molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) material (molybdenum disulfide material meets the limitation of a molybdenum sulfide powder) for electrocatalytic hydrogen production (material for electrocatalytic hydrogen production meets the limitation of a hydrogen generation electrochemical catalyst; [0071]) comprising a plurality of metals including a first metal and a second metal [0009], wherein the first metal and the second metal are each independently selected from one of tin, iron, cobalt, nickel, gold, silver, platinum, and palladium, and the first metal and the second metal are not the same (iron, cobalt, nickel, gold, silver, platinum, and palladium meet the limitation of a doping metal in Groups 3 to 13; [0010]). Gong further discloses the total molar ratio of the plurality of metals relative to the molar ratio of the molybdenum disulfide (calculated as molybdenum) is (0.04 to 0.15):1 [0009].
Regarding the ratio of an amount of metal to an amount of molybdenum in claim 18, it appears that a molar ratio of is (0.04 to 0.15):1 taught by Gong overlaps the claimed range of a ratio of 0.1 to 20 mol% such that the range taught by Gong obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Gong is silent to the molybdenum disulfide having a 3R crystal structure.
Gong, however, discloses MoS2 has three crystal forms: 1T, 2H, and 3R [0005]. Gong further provides an XRD of MoS2, Co-MoS2, and Co-Pd-MoS2 having broad peaks at approximately 15°, 33°, and 39.5° with half widths of more than 1° ([0213], Fig. 6), which is substantially similar to the XRD of the 3R-MoS2 of Toh having broad peaks at approximately 15°, 33°, and 39.5° with half widths of more than 1° (pg. S3, Fig. S1 (C)), whereas the XRD of the 2H-MoS2 of Toh has narrow peaks at approximately 15°, 33° and 39.5° with half widths of less than 1° (pg. S3 Fig. S1 (A)). The presence of peaks with a half width of 1° or more indicates the presence of both the 2H and 3R crystal structures of the 3R-MoS2 of Toh (pg. 30585, Col. 1, par. 4).
Therefore, because the multi-metal doped molybdenum disulfide of Gong resembles the 3R-MoS2 of Toh, having peaks with half widths of 1° or more, the multi-metal doped molybdenum disulfide of Gong has both 2H and 3R crystal structures, such that the multi-metal doped molybdenum disulfide of Gong meets the limitation of having a 3R crystal structure.
Regarding Claim 21, Gong discloses the synthesized Co-Pd-MoS2 has a nanoribbon morphology (nanoribbon morphology meets the limitation of a ribbon shape; [0211]). Gong discloses the multi-metal doped molybdenum disulfide material of the present invention preferably has a thickness of 1-20 nm for the bimetal doped molybdenum disulfide (1-20 nm meets the limitation of 1 nm to 40 nm; [0106]).
Regarding Claim 22, Gong discloses the multi-metal-doped molybdenum disulfide material has a specific surface area between 10 and 100 m²/g (between 10 and 100 m²/g meets the limitation of 10 m²/g or more; [0014]).
Although there is no disclosure that the test method is conformity with a BET method, given that Gong discloses specific surface area as is presently claimed and absent evidence of criticality in how the specific surface area is measured, it is the Examiner's position that the specific surface area disclosed by Gong meets the claim limitation.
Regarding Claim 23, Gong discloses the synthesized Co-Pd-MoS2 has a nanoribbon morphology with a width of about 400-600 nm and a length of several micrometers [0211] and a thickness of 1-20 nm for the bimetal doped molybdenum disulfide [0106], such that the metal-doped molybdenum sulfide powder of Gong has a median diameter D50 overlapping the claimed range of 10 nm to 2,000 nm such that the range taught by Gong obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Although there is no disclosure that the test method is conformity with a dynamic light scattering type particle diameter distribution measuring device, given that Gong discloses particle dimensions as is presently claimed and absent evidence of criticality in how the particle size is measured, it is the Examiner's position that particle size disclosed by Gong meets the claim limitation.
Regarding Claim 25, Gong discloses the first metal and the second metal are each independently selected from one of tin, iron, cobalt, nickel, gold, silver, platinum, and palladium, and the first metal and the second metal are not the same [0010].
Regarding Claim 26, Gong discloses the first metal and the second metal are each independently selected from one of tin, iron, cobalt, nickel, gold, silver, platinum, and palladium, and the first metal and the second metal are not the same (gold, silver, iron, nickel, and cobalt meet the limitation of a conductive material per [0044] of the Specification of the present application; [0010]). Since Gong discloses a bimetal doped molybdenum sulfide, one metal may be considered the doping metal, and the other metal may be considered the conductive material.
Regarding Claim 27, Gong discloses forming a catalyst solution (catalyst solution meets the limitation of a catalyst ink) comprising 4 mg of the catalyst (i.e. Co-MoS2, Pd-MoS2, or Co-Pd-MoS2) and 1 mL of water/ethanol (water and ethanol meet the limitation of a solvent), wherein the catalyst solution was loaded on a glassy carbon electrode [0275] in order to measure the electrocatalytic HER activity [0270].
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (CN 111701597) in view of Toh ("3R phase of MoS2 and WS2 outperforms the corresponding 2H phase for hydrogen evolution").
Regarding Claim 19, Gong teaches the elements as described above with regards to claim 18.
Gong discloses MoS2 has three crystal forms: 1T, 2H, and 3R [0005].
Gong is silent to the molybdenum disulfide having a 2H crystal structure and a 3R crystal structure.
Toh discloses 3R-MoS2 having a mixture of the 3R phase and the 2H phase (phase meets the limitation of crystal structure; pg. 3055, Col. 1, par. 4; Fig. S18). Toh further discloses an increase in synthesis temperature generally led to a decrease in the 3R phase concentration, and a reduction in the 3R phase concentration accounts for the decreasing trend in the HER catalytic performance of the 3R phase MoS2 with increasing synthesis temperature (pg. 3056, Col. 2, par. 3; Fig. S18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gong to incorporate the teachings of Toh to use molybdenum disulfide having a 2H crystal structure and a 3R crystal structure, because 3R-MoS2 having a mixture of the 3R phase and the 2H phase is a process parameter well-known in the art of synthesizing MoS2, as recognized by Toh (pg. 3055, Col. 1, par. 4), and the 3R phase concentration in 3R-MoS2 can be adjusted by a change in synthesis temperature in order to optimize the HER catalytic performance of the 3R phase MoS2, as recognized by Toh (pg. 3055, Col. 1, par. 4).
Regarding Claim 20, Gong provides a spectrum of the metal-doped molybdenum sulfide powder, Co-MoS2 and Co-Pd-MoS2, obtained by XRD having a peak in the vicinity of 39.5° with a half width of approximately 5° (5° meets the limitation of 1° or more; [0213], Fig. 6).
Gong is silent to using Cu-Kα rays as an X-ray source, and the XRD of Gong does not appear to be on a scale which would show a peak in the vicinity of 49.5°.
Toh provides a spectrum of 3R-MoS2 obtained by XRD using Cu-Kα rays as an X-ray source (pg. S2, par. 2), with a peak in the vicinity of 39.5° having a half width of approximately 4° (4° meets the limitation of 1° or more) and a peak in the vicinity of 49.5° having a half width of approximately 3° (3° meets the limitation of 1° or more; pg. S3, Fig. S1 (C)), such that the XRD includes a synthetic peak of the 2H crystal structure and the 3R crystal structure. Toh discloses 3R-MoS2 having a mixture of the 3R phase and the 2H phase (phase meets the limitation of crystal structure; pg. 3055, Col. 1, par. 4; Fig. S18). Toh further discloses an increase in synthesis temperature generally led to a decrease in the 3R phase concentration, and a reduction in the 3R phase concentration accounts for the decreasing trend in the HER catalytic performance of the 3R phase MoS2 with increasing synthesis temperature (pg. 3056, Col. 2, par. 3; Fig. S18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gong to incorporate the teachings of Toh to use Cu-Kα rays as an X-ray source, because using Cu-Kα rays as an X-ray source for XRD of MoS2 is a process parameter well-known in the art of MoS2 hydrogen generation electrochemical catalysts, as recognized by Toh, and to provide a spectrum obtained by XRD having a peak in the vicinity of 49.5° having a half width of 1° or more, such that the XRD includes a synthetic peak of the 2H crystal structure and the 3R crystal structure, because 3R-MoS2 having a mixture of the 3R phase and the 2H phase is a process parameter well-known in the art of synthesizing MoS2, as recognized by Toh (pg. 3055, Col. 1, par. 4), and the 3R phase concentration in 3R-MoS2 can be adjusted by a change in synthesis temperature in order to optimize the HER catalytic performance of the 3R phase MoS2, as recognized by Toh (pg. 3055, Col. 1, par. 4).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (CN 111701597) in view of Bouwens (“EXAFS STUDY OF THE LOCAL STRUCTURE OF Ni IN Ni-MoS2/C HYDRODESULFURIZATION CATALYSTS”) as evidenced by Xia (“Wavelet analysis of extended X-ray absorption fine structure data: Theory, application”).
Regarding Claim 24, Gong teaches the elements as described above with regards to claim 18.
Gong is silent to a radial distribution function of the metal-doped molybdenum sulfide powder obtained from an extended X-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS) spectrum of a K absorption edge of molybdenum, a ratio (I/II) of peak intensity I caused by Mo-S to peak intensity II caused by Mo-Mo is more than 1.0.
Bouwens illustrates Fourier transform magnitudes of EXAFS of Ni-MoS2 wherein the Mo-S: Mo-Mo peak intensity ratio is approximately 1.8 (1.8 meets the limitation of more than 1.0; pg. 277; Fig 3 (bottom)), which is further described as the Mo K edge (Mo K edge meets the limitation of a K absorption edge of molybdenum) EXAFS (pg. 282, par. 2).
Xia discloses the well-known Fourier transform (FT) of EXAFS signal corresponds to the effective pseudo-radial distribution function (RDF) (pg. 12, Col. 2, par. 2), such that the Fourier transform magnitudes of Bouwens meets the limitation of a radial distribution function.
Claims 18-23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (CN 111701597) in view of Toh ("3R phase of MoS2 and WS2 outperforms the corresponding 2H phase for hydrogen evolution").
An alternative rejection of claim 18 is provided in case the multi-metal doped molybdenum disulfide of Gong does not have a 3R crystal structure.
Alternatively, regarding Claim 18, Gong discloses a multi-metal doped molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) material (molybdenum disulfide material meets the limitation of a molybdenum sulfide powder) for electrocatalytic hydrogen production (material for electrocatalytic hydrogen production meets the limitation of a hydrogen generation electrochemical catalyst; [0071]) comprising a plurality of metals including a first metal and a second metal [0009], wherein the first metal and the second metal are each independently selected from one of tin, iron, cobalt, nickel, gold, silver, platinum, and palladium, and the first metal and the second metal are not the same (iron, cobalt, nickel, gold, silver, platinum, and palladium meet the limitation of a doping metal in Groups 3 to 13; [0010]). Gong further discloses the total molar ratio of the plurality of metals relative to the molar ratio of the molybdenum disulfide (calculated as molybdenum) is (0.04 to 0.15):1 [0009].
Regarding the ratio of an amount of metal to an amount of molybdenum in claim 18, it appears that a molar ratio of is (0.04 to 0.15):1 taught by Gong overlaps the claimed range of a ratio of 0.1 to 20 mol% such that the range taught by Gong obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Gong is silent to the molybdenum disulfide having a 3R crystal structure.
Toh discloses a 2H and 3R phase MoS2 for hydrogen evolution reaction, where the 3R phase outperforms its 2H phase counterpart in hydrogen evolution reaction catalysis (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gong to incorporate the teachings of Toh to use a MoS2 having a 3R crystal structure, because the 3R phase outperforms its 2H phase counterpart in hydrogen evolution reaction catalysis, as recognized by Toh (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 19, Gong teaches the elements as described above with regards to claim 18.
Gong discloses MoS2 has three crystal forms: 1T, 2H, and 3R [0005].
Gong is silent to the molybdenum disulfide having a 2H crystal structure and a 3R crystal structure.
Toh discloses 3R-MoS2 having a mixture of the 3R phase and the 2H phase (phase meets the limitation of crystal structure; pg. 3055, Col. 1, par. 4; Fig. S18). Toh further discloses an increase in synthesis temperature generally led to a decrease in the 3R phase concentration, and a reduction in the 3R phase concentration accounts for the decreasing trend in the HER catalytic performance of the 3R phase MoS2 with increasing synthesis temperature (pg. 3056, Col. 2, par. 3; Fig. S18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gong to incorporate the teachings of Toh to use molybdenum disulfide having a 2H crystal structure and a 3R crystal structure, because 3R-MoS2 having a mixture of the 3R phase and the 2H phase is a process parameter well-known in the art of synthesizing MoS2, as recognized by Toh (pg. 3055, Col. 1, par. 4), and the 3R phase concentration in 3R-MoS2 can be adjusted by a change in synthesis temperature in order to optimize the HER catalytic performance of the 3R phase MoS2, as recognized by Toh (pg. 3055, Col. 1, par. 4).
Regarding Claim 20, Gong provides a spectrum of the metal-doped molybdenum sulfide powder, Co-MoS2 and Co-Pd-MoS2, obtained by XRD having a peak in the vicinity of 39.5° with a half width of approximately 5° (5° meets the limitation of 1° or more; [0213], Fig. 6).
Gong is silent to using Cu-Kα rays as an X-ray source, and the XRD of Gong does not appear to be on a scale which would show a peak in the vicinity of 49.5°.
Toh provides a spectrum of 3R-MoS2 obtained by XRD using Cu-Kα rays as an X-ray source (pg. S2, par. 2), with a peak in the vicinity of 39.5° having a half width of approximately 4° (4° meets the limitation of 1° or more) and a peak in the vicinity of 49.5° having a half width of approximately 3° (3° meets the limitation of 1° or more; pg. S3, Fig. S1 (C)), such that the XRD includes a synthetic peak of the 2H crystal structure and the 3R crystal structure. Toh discloses 3R-MoS2 having a mixture of the 3R phase and the 2H phase (phase meets the limitation of crystal structure; pg. 3055, Col. 1, par. 4; Fig. S18). Toh further discloses an increase in synthesis temperature generally led to a decrease in the 3R phase concentration, and a reduction in the 3R phase concentration accounts for the decreasing trend in the HER catalytic performance of the 3R phase MoS2 with increasing synthesis temperature (pg. 3056, Col. 2, par. 3; Fig. S18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gong to incorporate the teachings of Toh to use Cu-Kα rays as an X-ray source, because using Cu-Kα rays as an X-ray source for XRD of MoS2 is a process parameter well-known in the art of MoS2 hydrogen generation electrochemical catalysts, as recognized by Toh, and to provide a spectrum obtained by XRD having a peak in the vicinity of 49.5° having a half width of 1° or more, such that the XRD includes a synthetic peak of the 2H crystal structure and the 3R crystal structure, because 3R-MoS2 having a mixture of the 3R phase and the 2H phase is a process parameter well-known in the art of synthesizing MoS2, as recognized by Toh (pg. 3055, Col. 1, par. 4), and the 3R phase concentration in 3R-MoS2 can be adjusted by a change in synthesis temperature in order to optimize the HER catalytic performance of the 3R phase MoS2, as recognized by Toh (pg. 3055, Col. 1, par. 4).
Regarding Claim 21, Gong discloses the synthesized Co-Pd-MoS2 has a nanoribbon morphology (nanoribbon morphology meets the limitation of a ribbon shape; [0211]). Gong discloses the multi-metal doped molybdenum disulfide material of the present invention preferably has a thickness of 1-20 nm for the bimetal doped molybdenum disulfide (1-20 nm meets the limitation of 1 nm to 40 nm; [0106]).
Regarding Claim 22, Gong discloses the multi-metal-doped molybdenum disulfide material has a specific surface area between 10 and 100 m²/g (between 10 and 100 m²/g meets the limitation of 10 m²/g or more; [0014]).
Although there is no disclosure that the test method is conformity with a BET method, given that Gong discloses specific surface area as is presently claimed and absent evidence of criticality in how the specific surface area is measured, it is the Examiner's position that the specific surface area disclosed by Gong meets the claim limitation.
Regarding Claim 23, Gong discloses the synthesized Co-Pd-MoS2 has a nanoribbon morphology with a width of about 400-600 nm and a length of several micrometers [0211] and a thickness of 1-20 nm for the bimetal doped molybdenum disulfide [0106], such that the metal-doped molybdenum sulfide powder of Gong has a median diameter D50 overlapping the claimed range of 10 nm to 2,000 nm such that the range taught by Gong obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Although there is no disclosure that the test method is conformity with a dynamic light scattering type particle diameter distribution measuring device, given that Gong discloses particle dimensions as is presently claimed and absent evidence of criticality in how the particle size is measured, it is the Examiner's position that particle size disclosed by Gong meets the claim limitation.
Regarding Claim 25, Gong discloses the first metal and the second metal are each independently selected from one of tin, iron, cobalt, nickel, gold, silver, platinum, and palladium, and the first metal and the second metal are not the same [0010].
Regarding Claim 26, Gong discloses the first metal and the second metal are each independently selected from one of tin, iron, cobalt, nickel, gold, silver, platinum, and palladium, and the first metal and the second metal are not the same (gold, silver, iron, nickel, and cobalt meet the limitation of a conductive material per [0044] of the Specification of the present application; [0010]). Since Gong discloses a bimetal doped molybdenum sulfide, one metal may be considered the doping metal, and the other metal may be considered the conductive material.
Regarding Claim 27, Gong discloses forming a catalyst solution (catalyst solution meets the limitation of a catalyst ink) comprising 4 mg of the catalyst (i.e. Co-MoS2, Pd-MoS2, or Co-Pd-MoS2) and 1 mL of water/ethanol (water and ethanol meet the limitation of a solvent), wherein the catalyst solution was loaded on a glassy carbon electrode [0275] in order to measure the electrocatalytic HER activity [0270].
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (CN 111701597) in view of Toh ("3R phase of MoS2 and WS2 outperforms the corresponding 2H phase for hydrogen evolution") and Bouwens (“EXAFS STUDY OF THE LOCAL STRUCTURE OF Ni IN Ni-MoS2/C HYDRODESULFURIZATION CATALYSTS”) as evidenced by Xia (“Wavelet analysis of extended X-ray absorption fine structure data: Theory, application”).
Regarding Claim 24, Gong and Toh teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 18.
Gong is silent to a radial distribution function of the metal-doped molybdenum sulfide powder obtained from an extended X-ray absorption fine structure (EXAFS) spectrum of a K absorption edge of molybdenum, a ratio (I/II) of peak intensity I caused by Mo-S to peak intensity II caused by Mo-Mo is more than 1.0.
Bouwens illustrates Fourier transform magnitudes of EXAFS of Ni-MoS2 wherein the Mo-S: Mo-Mo peak intensity ratio is approximately 1.8 (1.8 meets the limitation of more than 1.0; pg. 277; Fig 3 (bottom)), which is further described as the Mo K edge (Mo K edge meets the limitation of a K absorption edge of molybdenum) EXAFS (pg. 282, par. 2).
Xia discloses the well-known Fourier transform (FT) of EXAFS signal corresponds to the effective pseudo-radial distribution function (RDF) (pg. 12, Col. 2, par. 2), such that the Fourier transform magnitudes of Bouwens meets the limitation of a radial distribution function.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLONE ELZABETH SIMKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-3214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/S.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735