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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the outer frame and slats (claim 17) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 8 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the biased catch" and “the bracket”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 8 depends from claim 6 and claim 1 depends from claim 1. “A biased catch” and “a bracket” are introduced in claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Natuzzi (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0011830).
Regarding Claim 1: Natuzzi discloses a fixture for a recreational vehicle (paragraph [0001] of Natuzzi – “The present disclosure relates to a convertible furniture arrangement for a living quarters, such as a recreational vehicle. More specifically, the present disclosure relates to a convertible seating, dining, and sleeping arrangement for a slide-out room of a recreational vehicle”), the fixture comprising: a first wall (base 126 of the bed assembly 110 – Fig. 13 of Natuzzi) configured to pivotably couple to an upright wall (wall 118 of Natuzzi) of the recreational vehicle on a proximal side thereof (Fig. 13 of Natuzzi); a second wall (120 of Natuzzi – Fig 13) pivotably coupled to the first wall on a distal side thereof opposite to the upright wall (paragraph [0071] of Natuzzi – “FIGS. 9-11 illustrate a first step for converting the furniture arrangement 100 to the bed mode. More specifically, FIG. 9-11 illustrate the support 120 of the bed assembly 110 being pivoted upwardly and away from the base 126 of the bed assembly 110. The support 120 thereby extends partially outwardly from the slide-out structure 108. As shown specifically in FIGS. 10 and 11, the support 120 may be held in this pivoted configuration via an extensible and pivotable arm 148 coupling the support 120 to the base 126. The support 120 may also pivotably couple to the base 126 via one or more hinges (not shown)”); wherein the fixture is configured to have: a bed arrangement (Figs. 13-14 of Natuzzi) with the first wall extending outwardly from the upright wall and the second wall extending downwardly from the first wall (Fig. 13 of Natuzzi) to provide support therefor such that a main face of the first wall comprises an upwardly facing bed surface (upper surface of base 26 supporting mattress 166 of Natuzzi); and a table arrangement (support 120 of Natuzzi – Fig. 10) with the first wall extending along the upright wall (as shown in Fig. 10 of Natuzzi) and the second wall extending outwardly from the upright wall such that a main face of the second wall comprises an upwardly facing table surface (as shown in Fig. 10 of Natuzzi).
Regarding Claim 2: Natuzzi discloses the fixture of claim 1, wherein the fixture is further configured to have a stowed arrangement with the first wall extending along the upright wall and the second wall extending along the first wall (as shown in Fig. 4 of Natuzzi where the bed assembly 110 and the support structure are parallel with the upright wall 118 of Natuzzi).
Regarding Claim 3: Natuzzi discloses the fixture of claim 1, wherein the first wall comprises an upright trim extending along a proximal edge thereof, such that the trim is configured to extend along the upright wall with the fixture in the bed arrangement (see annotated copy of Fig. 17 of Natuzzi).
PNG
media_image1.png
802
821
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4: Natuzzi discloses the fixture of claim 1, further comprising a catch (first latch 150A of Natuzzi – Fig. 12) configured to hold the fixture in the table arrangement (see paragraph [0072] and Fig. 11 of Natuzzi which shows the latch 150A engaged to the first wall to hold the first wall parallel to the upright wall).
Regarding Claim 6: Natuzzi discloses the fixture of claim 1, further comprising a ledge wall (168 of Natuzzi – Fig. 14) coupled to the first wall on the distal side thereof (Figs. 13 and 14 of Natuzzi), the ledge wall extending transverse with respect to the first wall (Figs. 13 and 14 of Natuzzi), such that the ledge wall extends upwardly adjacent to the bed surface with the fixture in the bed arrangement (compare 168 to 126 in Figs. 13 and 14 of Natuzzi).
Regarding Claim 7: Natuzzi discloses the fixture of claim 6, wherein an outer main face of the ledge wall is generally co-planar with the main face of the second wall (see wall 168 and 120 in Figs. 13 and 14 of Natuzzi which shows 168 and 120 as co-planar).
Regarding Claim 11: Natuzzi discloses the fixture of claim 6, further comprising a headboard coupled to an end of the first wall, such that the upright wall, ledge wall, and the headboard are configured to bound a bed reception area around the bed surface (see annotated copy of Fig. 17 and Fig. 17 of Natuzzi).
PNG
media_image1.png
802
821
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12: Natuzzi discloses the fixture of claim 1, further comprising a support (as shown in annotate copy of Fig. 14 of Natuzzi) configured to be mounted to the upright wall (via the integral connection with the slide out structure 108 of Natuzzi), the first wall being pivotably coupled to the support (compare Figs. 10 and 14 which show the first wall pivoting relative to the support).
PNG
media_image2.png
845
827
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morrison (US Patent No. 3,540,066).
Regarding Claim 1: Morrison discloses a fixture for a recreational vehicle (see the title of Morrison – “Foldable bed for trailers or the like”), the fixture comprising: a first wall (aluminum base 10 and supporting frame 12 of Morrison) configured to pivotably couple to an upright wall (via fastening to elements 16 to the floor which together with the walls forms the structure of Morrison – Fig. 1) of the recreational vehicle on a proximal side thereof (see the title of Morrison – “Foldable bed for trailers or the like”); a second wall (26 of Morrison) pivotably coupled to the first wall (see the phantom lines of the folding shelf 26 of Morrison) on a distal side thereof opposite to the upright wall (see Fig. 1 of Morrison); wherein the fixture is configured to have: a bed arrangement (see Fig. 1 of Morrison showing the bed arrangement when shelf 26 is placed perpendicular to a floor of the trailer) with the first wall extending outwardly from the upright wall (Fig. 1 of Morrison) and the second wall extending downwardly (26 is placed perpendicular to a floor of the trailer in Fig. 1 of Morrison) from the first wall to provide support therefor such that a main face of the first wall comprises an upwardly facing bed surface (formed of the base 10 and 12 defining a mattress support and facing upwardly as shown in Fig. 1); and a table arrangement (phantom lines of Fig. 1 showing the shelf 26 extending perpendicularly from the supporting frame 12 to act as a shelf) with the first wall extending along the upright wall (Fig. 1 showing the supporting frame parallel with wall 4 in a folded configuration) and the second wall extending outwardly from the upright wall such that a main face of the second wall comprises an upwardly facing table surface (shown by the phantom lines in Fig. 1 of Morrison when the shelf 26 extends perpendicularly from the surface 12 to form a shelf).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natuzzi (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0011830) in view of Reppas (US Patent No. 4,318,195).
Regarding Claim 5: Natuzzi discloses the fixture of claim 4, wherein the catch comprises: a bracket (catch plate 156 of Natuzzi) configured to be mounted on the upright wall (via the connection of 108 to 106 of Natuzzi); and a […] catch coupled to the first wall, the bracket and catch having interconnecting components configured to releasably engage one another (paragraph [0072] of Natuzzi – “Illustratively, the latch 150A includes a knob 154 that is pivotable carried by the base 126, a slidable bolt 155 (FIG. 12) operatively coupled to the knob 154, a strike plate 156 carried by the first side wall 152A, and a slot 157 (FIG. 12) formed in the strike plate 156 for selectively receiving the bolt 155. The knob 154 is pivotable relative to the base 126 to disengage the bolt 155 from the slot 157 of the strike plate 156. In other embodiments, the latch 150A may take any other form known in the art”).
Natuzzi does not explicitly disclose that the catch is a biased catch.
However, in the same field of endeavor, convertible furniture (see the abstract of Reppas), Reppas teaches a catch comprising a bracket (strike plate 44 of Reppas – Fig. 6) configured to be mounted to an upright wall (housing 18 of Reppas) and a biased catch (biased locking detent 38 of Reppas – Fig. 6) coupled to [a] first wall (bed frame 12 of Reppas), the bracket and catch having interconnecting components configured to releasably engage one another (Col. 2, lines 35-56 of Reppas – “Releasable lock means is provided for releasably holding the bed frame and desk in their respective prone and lowered positions. The releasable lock means comprises a pair of lock units 36 provided on opposite sides of the bed frame and desk. Lock unit 36 is illustrated in greater detail in FIG. 6. The lock unit comprises a locking detent 38 mounted for axial sliding movement within a barrel 40 mounted in the side of the desk. The detent is yieldably urged outwardly of the desk by a spring 42 into engagement with a strike plate 44 attached to the inside of the bed frame in alignment with the detent. The distal end of the detent is beveled to automatically move into engagement with the strike plate. A release button 46 is mounted within a socket in the bed frame and is yieldably urged by a spring 48 out of engagement with the detent. The distal end of the button projects outwardly from the bed frame so that it can be depressed by the user when it is desired to release the lock. When depressed the inner end of the button moves the detent out of engagement with the strike plate. When the buttons of both locks are depressed in this manner the frame is released from the desk.”).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Natuzzi (directed to an convertible furniture unit with a single support) and Reppas (directed to a convertible furniture unit with a spring biased catch) with a reasonable expectation of success by substituting the latch of Natuzzi with a spring biased catch as taught by Reppas. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because the biased and beveled detent enables “automatic[..] move[ment of the detent] into engagement with the strike plate.”
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natuzzi (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0011830) in view of Miller (US Patent No. 1,276,094).
Regarding Claim 10: Natuzzi discloses the fixture of claim 6 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second wall comprises an offset bracket to pivotably couple to the first wall spaced from a distal edge thereof, such that the second wall abuts the first wall in the table arrangement to be prevented from pivoting past perpendicular relative thereto.
However, in the same field of endeavor, folding beds (title of Miller), Miller teaches a second wall (25 of Miller) comprises an offset bracket (knees 26 of Miller) to pivotably couple to the first wall (outer section 6 of Miller – Fig. 1) spaced from a distal edge thereof (see the pivotal connection of 26 positioned at a position offset from the distalmost end of 6 of Miller), such that the second wall abuts the first wall (see Fig. 1 of Miller and page 2, lines 1-15 of Miller which teaches the knees of Miller aiding in the maintained position of elements 25 relative to 6 as shown in Fig. 1) in the table arrangement to be prevented from pivoting past perpendicular relative thereto (see Fig. 1 of Miller and page 2, lines 1-15 of Miller which teaches the knees 26 and locks 27 of Miller aiding in the maintained position of elements 25 relative to 6 as shown in Fig. 1).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Natuzzi (directed to a convertible furniture unit) and Miller (directed to a hinge for maintaining a position of a folding furniture unit) with a reasonable expectation of success by forming the hinged connection of the shelf of Natuzzi with knees and locks as taught by Miller. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because “the frame can be rigidly locked when raised“ (page 2, lines 4-10 of Miller).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natuzzi (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0011830) in view of Monestier (WO 03/024279).
Regarding Claim 13: Natuzzi discloses the fixture of claim 1, further comprising a […] [support] extending between the first and second walls (pivotable arm 148 of Natuzzi), the […] [support] configured to support the first wall in the bed arrangement (see Fig. 14 of Natuzzi showing the arm 148 supporting 126) and the second wall in the table arrangement (see Fig. 11 of Natuzzi showing the arm 148 supporting 120 in Fig. 11).
Natuzzi teaches one single support 148 but does not explicitly disclose a pair of corner supports.
However, in the same field of endeavor, convertible furniture (see the abstract of Monestier), Monestier teaches a pair of corner supports (connecting rods 9 of Monestier).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined Natuzzi (directed to an convertible furniture unit with a single support) and Monestier (directed to a convertible furniture assembly with a pair of corner supports) and arrived at a convertible furniture unit with a pair of corner supports. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (duplicating the arm of Natuzzi and positioning them near the corners) with no change in their respective functions (the support 120 would be able to transition to the different positions of Figs. 10-14 of Natuzzi) with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (two supports near the edges of the support adds greater support and strength than a single middle support).
Regarding Claim 14: Natuzzi in view of Monestier make obvious the fixture of claim 13, wherein the corner supports each further comprise a bumper configured to engage the first wall (the end of the arm 148 of Natuzzi which engages the first wall is considered a bumper).
Regarding Claim 15: Natuzzi in view of Monestier make obvious the fixture of claim 13, wherein the corner supports are pivotably coupled to the second wall to be movable from a use position extending between the first and second walls (Fig. 11 or 14 of Natuzzi), to a storage position extending along the second wall (Fig. 7 of Natuzzi shows the support folded which requires the pivotable arm 148 to be in a stored position as indicated by the groove shown in Fig. 11 and the discussion of the pivotable arm being extensible in paragraph [0071] of Natuzzi).
Note that the phrase “a storage position extending along the second wall” does not require the supports to be directly connected to the second wall.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natuzzi (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0011830) in view of Monestier (WO 03/024279) further in view of Tseng (US Patent No. 6,471,173).
Regarding Claim 16: Natuzzi in view of Monestier make obvious the fixture of claim 15, but do not disclose further comprising a catch configured to selectively hold the corner supports in the use position.
However, in the same field of endeavor, folding furniture (see the abstract of Tseng), Tseng teaches a catch (locking lever 6 of Tseng) configured to selectively hold […] corner supports in the use position (position shown in Fig. 2 of Tseng).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Natuzzi (drawn to a convertible furniture assembly), Monestier (directed to a convertible furniture assembly with a pair of corner supports) and Tseng (directed to a folding furniture item with a latch maintaining the support in a use position) with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in art would have been motivated to make such a combination because the locking member “prevents undesired folding of the support leg” (see Col. 4, lines 33-36 of Tseng) and enables desired unlatching when the support is desired to be folded (Col. 4, lines 33-36 of Tseng).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Natuzzi (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0011830) in view of Vayda (US Patent No. 5,522,102).
Regarding Claim 17: Natuzzi discloses the fixture of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the first wall comprises an outer frame and a plurality of slats extending within the outer frame.
In the same field of endeavor, storable wall beds (abstract of Vayda), Vayda teaches a first wall (slat support frame and slats forming a first wall in Vayda - Fig. 7) comprises an outer frame (bed frame formed of sides 24, 24’ and ends 23, 26 of Vayda – Fig. 7) and a plurality of slats (22 of Vayda – Fig. 7) extending within the outer frame (Fig. 7 of Vayda).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined Natuzzi (directed to a convertible furniture unit with a single support) and Vayda (directed to a convertible furniture assembly with slats) and arrived at a convertible furniture unit formed with a frame and slat arrangement. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming the mattress supporting surface with slats supported by a frame) with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (utilizing less material to support the mattress creates a lighter weight structure).
Claim(s) 6 (alternatively) and claims 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrison (US Patent No. 3,540,066) in view of Reppas (US Patent No. 4,318,195).
Regarding Claim 6: Morrison discloses the fixture of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a ledge wall coupled to the first wall on the distal side thereof, the ledge wall extending transverse with respect to the first wall, such that the ledge wall extends upwardly adjacent to the bed surface with the fixture in the bed arrangement.
However, in the same field of endeavor, folding beds (see the abstract of Reppas), Reppas teaches a ledge wall coupled to the first wall on the distal side thereof, the ledge wall extending transverse with respect to the first wall, such that the ledge wall extends upwardly adjacent to the bed surface with the fixture in the bed arrangement (Fig. 1 of Reppas shows a mattress entirely surrounded by frame 12 of Reppas meaning the frame 12 is comprised of vertically extending walls considered a ledge).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined Morrison (directed to an convertible furniture unit) and Reppas (directed to a convertible furniture assembly with a ledge wall) and arrived at a convertible furniture unit with a ledge wall extending from the first wall. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming the bed frame with tall depth walls to entirely surround the periphery of the mattress) with no change in their respective functions (the support of Morrison would still fold as desired) with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (added protection and support to the peripheral edges of the mattress).
Regarding Claim 8: Morrison in view of Reppas make obvious the fixture of claim 6, wherein the biased catch (40 and 42 of Reppas – Fig. 6) is slidably coupled to the ledge wall (via the connection of the catch with the side wall of Reppas which directly couples to the ledge wall), the ledge wall configured to engage the bracket to thereby engage the biased catch to the bracket (via the connection of the side wall including a bracket 40).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Morrison (directed to an convertible furniture unit) and Reppas (directed to a convertible furniture assembly with a ledge wall and latch) and arrived at a convertible furniture unit with a ledge wall extending from the first wall and a latch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because the releasable lock means provides for releasably holding the bed frame and desk in their respective prone and lowered positions (see Col. 2, lines 35-39 of Reppas).
Regarding Claim 9: Morrison in view of Reppas make obvious the fixture of claim 6, wherein the ledge wall is pivotably fixed relative to the first wall (see the frame 12 of Reppas formed of a solid frame with fixed pivotal movement).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG Pub. No. 2005/0055770 to Reppas et al. is cited for teaching a convertible furniture assembly having a bed frame pivotally coupled to a frame assembly and a tabletop hingedly coupled to the bed frame.
US PG Pub. No. 2016/0235209 to Cervantes is cited for teaching a folding bed with pivotable corner supports.
US PG Pub. No. 2023/0232995 to Zieman et al. is cited for teaching a deployable furniture unit with corner supports.
US Patent No. 3,866,547 to Guyton is cited for teaching a stowable wall table.
US Patent No. 0504778 to Flory teaches a latch for a wall bed located at the top of the cabinet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA L BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/AMANDA L BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3673