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 .
Applicants’ arguments, filed 12/23/2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103--Previous
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 no obviousness.
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, 3-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2023038353 A1, publication date 16/03/2023; citing English machine translation) and “KR ‘107” (KR 100530107 B1, publication date 11/22/2005; citing English machine translation) in view of Tai et al. (KR 20180023537 A, publication date 03/07/2018; citing English machine translation), Klein (Cosmetics & Toiletries magazine, 2003, vol. 118, no. 2, p. 42-46), Behrens (Lubrizol Uncovers Additional Benefits for Kelco-Care Diutan Gum, Cosmetics & Toiletries (online), 05/28/2021 [retrieved 9/16/2025]), Shu et al. (CN 108743453 A, publication date 11/06/2018 ; citing English machine translation), Ruggeri (Dr. Axe, 03/07/2022 [retrieved 9/16/2025], https://draxe.com/beauty/shea-butter-for-hair/), and Ikeda et al. (US 11,260,000 B2, date of patent 03/1/2022).
Kim relates to liquid crystal emulsions for cosmetics [title]. Kim discloses the method of making such an emulsion comprises: “[a] first mixing step of preparing a first mixture by dispersing an aqueous dispersion emulsifier in an aqueous phase; A second mixing step of preparing a second mixture by mixing a higher alcohol and a skin conditioning agent; A third mixing step of preparing a third mixture by mixing the first mixture and the second mixture; A fourth mixing step of mixing a thickener with the third mixture to form a cream; and A cooling step of cooling the cream to form a liquid crystal emulsion” [p. 14, claim 9]. According to Kim, “the first mixture includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a water dispersion emulsifier, a moisturizer, a pH adjusting agent, a sequestering agent, and a solvent” [p. 14, claim 10]. For the aqueous phase Kim discloses suitable emulsifiers include hydrogenated lecithin, cetearyl olivate and polyglyceryl-5 stearate (i.e., polyglycerol fatty acid ester) [p. 5, para. 5] and suitable moisturizers include glycerin [p. 6, para. 4]. For the oil phase Kim discloses a suitable higher alcohol is cetearyl alcohol [p. 13, claim 4], while suitable skin conditioning agents include phenyltrimethicone and caprylic/capric triglyceride [p. 5, last para.]. Kim discloses suitable thickeners include acrylate cross polymers (i.e., synthetic thickeners) [p. 5, 1st para.].
Kim differs from the instant claims because Kim does not disclose dispersing the thickening agents in the aqueous phase. Furthermore, Kim does not disclose gum thickeners, betaine, shea butter, stearic acid, and polyglycerol-6 stearate.
Regarding dispersion the thickening agent in the aqueous phase, KR ‘107 discloses a method of forming a liquid crystal emulsion comprising the step of producing the water phase by sequentially adding a “liquid crystal forming enhancer” and thickener to water, which is then heating and dispersed [p. 6, last para.]. KR ‘107 discloses suitable thickeners include acrylate thickeners [p. 6, para. 1].
KR ‘107 differs from the instant claims because it does not disclose hydrogenated lecithin, cetearyl olivate, sodium citrate, citric acid, gum thickeners, betaine, shea butter, stearic acid, and polyglycerol-6 stearate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have modified the methods of Kim to comprise a step of combining the thickeners with the aqueous phase before combining the aqueous phase and the oil phase. One would have had an expectation of success because KR ‘107 discloses that dispersing acrylate thickeners (i.e., same thickeners as Kim) in the aqueous phase is a suitable method for preparing a liquid crystal cosmetic emulsions. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to have substituted the step of adding thickeners to the aqueous phase of KR ‘107 in place of the step of adding thickeners last of Kim to thicken a liquid crystal cosmetic emulsion with a reasonable expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element in place of another in order to achieve predictable results is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to prepared a liquid crystal cosmetic composition comprising the steps of adding a thickener to an aqueous phase, followed by dispersing, then adding and oil phase and emulsifying, then allowing the emulsion to cool to form liquid crystal particles.
KR ‘107 and Kim together fail to disclose citric acid, sodium citrate, betaine, gum thickening agents, shea butter, stearic acid, and polyglycerol-6 stearate.
Regarding the thickening agents, Tai relates to cosmetic oil-in-water emulsions [title] and proposes a method for manufacturing a liquid crystal composition [p. 4, para. 5]. Tai discloses suitable thickeners include “gellan gum, guar gum, xanthan gum, locust bean gum, alginic acid, arabian gum… and the like” [p. 11, penultimate para.].
Klein relates to water phase emulsion thickeners [title]. Klein discloses that “[g]enerally the ‘natural’ thickeners have better electrolyte tolerance than the synthetic materials” [p. 44, right col., para. 4]. Klein further discloses that natural thickeners include xanthan gum [p. 46, penultimate para.] and “synthetic polymers can be loosely described as a homopolymer of acrylic acid that has been crosslinked” [p. 44, right col., 1st para.].
Behrens discloses “Kelco-Care diutan gum is a microbial polysaccharide produced by fermentation and described as an ideal stabilizer for formulations. Additional benefits identified include: a moisturizing effect that reportedly lasts all day long for multifunctional skin care; stability at high temperature, maintaining the viscosity of sunscreens; and strong pigment suspension capabilities, to meet the natural-derived makeup demand” [para. 1]. Furthermore, Behrens discloses that Kelco-Care diutan gum is an Sphingomonas ferment extract (i.e., instant claim 4) [title].
Tai, Klein and Behrens differ from the instant claims because they do not disclose the claimed methods, betaine, shea butter, stearic acid, and polyglycerol-6 stearate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have simply substituted the xanthan gum and diutan gum for the synthetic thickeners disclosed by Kim. One would have been motivated to make this substitution because natural thickeners, which includes xanthan gum and diutan gum, are known to have a better electrolyte tolerance. Furthermore, in addition to meeting the natural-derived makeup demand, diutan gum provides desirable effects such as moisturizing and stabilization. One would have had an expectation of success in making the simple substitution because Tai discloses gellan gum, guar gum, xanthan gum, locust bean gum, arabian gum and the like are suitable for liquid crystal emulsions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “and the like” of Tai to mean natural gum thickeners, which includes diutan gum. As a result, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to substitute the xanthan gum and diutan gum of Tai and Behrens in place of the synthetic acrylate thickeners of Kim to thicken the liquid crystal emulsion with a reasonable expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element in place of another in order to achieve predictable results is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to prepared a liquid crystal cosmetic composition comprising the steps of adding a thickener to an aqueous phase, followed by dispersing, then adding and oil phase and emulsifying, then allowing the emulsion to cool. Wherein the thickeners are xanthan gum and diutan gum.
Tai, Klein, Behrens, KR ‘107 and Kim together fail to disclose citric acid, sodium citrate, betaine, shea butter, stearic acid, and polyglycerol-6 stearate.
Regarding citric acid, sodium citrate and betaine, Shu relates to cosmetic liquid crystal emulsions [abstract & p. 12, penultimate para.]. Shu discloses suitable pH adjusting agents include citric acid and sodium citrate [p. 6, para. 3]. Shu also discloses suitable moisturizers include betaine [p. 6, para. 3] that the oil phase may comprise capric/caprylic triglyceride and shea butter [p. 6, para. 3]. Finally, Shu discloses a method of preparing the liquid crystal emulsion comprising completely dispersion a thickening agent in an aqueous phase, combining the aqueous phase with an oil phase and then mixing to emulsify [p. 10, all].
Ruggeri discloses shea butter “is effective for general skin care and scaly, dry skin, which is due to [shea butter’s] moisturizing, soothing and nourishing compounds” [p. 3, para. 2]. These compounds include stearic acid [p. 2, last para.].
Shu and Ruggeri do not disclose cetearyl olivate, cetearyl alcohol, stearic acid, phenyltrimethicone and polyglyceryl-6 stearate.
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
In the present case it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have selected citric acid and sodium citrate as pH adjusters and betaine as a moisturizing agent. One would have had an expectation of success because citric acid, sodium citrate and betaine were disclosed to be suitable pH adjusters and moisturizer (respectively) for liquid crystal cosmetic emulsions.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have to have combined the oil phase shea butter of Shu with the oil phase of Kim. One would have been motivated to combined these elements because Ruggeri discloses shea butter provides the desirable cosmetic effect of moisturizing, soothing and nourishing. One would have had an expectation of success because Shu discloses it may be present in the oil phase of liquid crystal cosmetic emulsions. Additionally, in combining these elements one would have expected nothing more than predictable results because, when combined, each prior art element would have performed the same function as it had separately. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to prepared a liquid crystal cosmetic composition comprising the steps of adding a thickener to an aqueous phase, followed by dispersing, then adding and oil phase and emulsifying, then allowing the emulsion to cool. Wherein the thickening agents are xanthan gum and diutan gum and the aqueous phase comprises water, glycerin, hydrogenated lecithin, cetearyl olivate, sodium citrate, citric acid and betaine.
Shu, Ruggeri, Tai, Klein, Behrens, KR ‘107 and Kim together fail to disclose polyglyceryl-6 stearate.
Regarding polyglyceryl-6 stearate, Kim discloses the water-dispersible emulsifier may be polyglyceryl-5 stearate (i.e., polyglycerol fatty acid ester) [p. 5, para. 5].
Ikeda “relates to a composition, preferably a cosmetic composition, comprising: (a) at least one oil; (b) at least one polyglyceryl fatty acid ester, preferably with a polyglyceryl moiety derived from 2 to 6 glycerins” [abstract], such as PG5 stearate and PG6 stearate (i.e., polyglyceryl-5 stearate and polyglyceryl-6 stearate) [col. 11, line 61]. Ikeda teaches the polyglyceryl fatty acid ester is added to the oil phase [col. 42, lines 6-8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have simply substituted polyglyceryl-6 stearate of Ikeda in place of the polyglyceryl-5 stearate of Kim. One would have had an expectation of success because Ikeda discloses they are both useful for cosmetic emulsions. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to substitute the polyglyceryl-6 stearate of Ikeda in place of the polyglyceryl-5 stearate of Kim as an emulsifier with a reasonable expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element (e.g., the polyglyceryl-6 stearate of Ikeda) in place of another (e.g., the polyglyceryl-5 stearate of Kim) in order to achieve predictable results (emulsify) is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale B.
Furthermore, polyglyceryl fatty acid ester are known emulsifiers for cosmetic emulsions and are known to be added to either the aqueous phase [Kim at p. 5, para. 5] or the oil phase [Ikeda at col. 42, lines 6-8]. In both cases (addition to the aqueous phase or oil phase) the prior art discloses they polyglyceryl fatty acid esters were effective in forming an emulsion. Additionally, the specification does not indicate that including the polyglyceryl fatty acid ester (polyglyceryl-6 stearate) in the oil phase, as opposed to the aqueous phase, results in any characteristics that would distinguishes the emulsion over the prior art. Finally, the prior art teaches all the claimed method steps. For these reasons, even though the prior art teaches the polyglyceryl fatty acid ester in the aqueous phase, one would have expected the methods and products of the prior art and the instant claims to provide the same results, characteristics, and properties.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have prepared a liquid crystal cosmetic emulsion by: (a) adding a thickener to an aqueous phase, followed by dispersion; (b) adding an oil phase to the aqueous phase of step (a), followed by emulsification; and (c) allowing the resulting emulsion to cool to form liquid crystal particles. Wherein the aqueous phase comprises purified water, glycerin, hydrogenated lecithin, cetearyl olivate, sodium citrate, citric acid, and betaine. Wherein the thickener comprises xanthan gum diutan gum extracted from Sphingomonas. Wherein the oil phase comprises shea butter, cetearyl alcohol, stearic acid, phenylmethyl trimethicone, and caprylic and capric triglyceride. Wherein the emulsified composition comprises polyglyceryl-6 stearate.
The prior art teaches a composition comprising substantially the same components made by a method comprising substantially the same method steps as the instant claims. Specifically, the methods and compositions of the prior art contain citric acid and sodium citrate which, according to the instant specification, are the electrolytes responsible for forming a microcurrent [p. 20, lines 23-25 & p. 19, lines 5-6]. Therefore, since the prior art methods and compositions contain substantially the same components, specifically citric acid and sodium citrate, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the composition of the prior art to inherently possess the same chemical and physical properties, such as being able to generate microcurrents.
Finally, the products according to instant claims 5 and 8 would have also been obvious because they are simply the result of the above methods.
Regarding instant claims 3 and 7, KR ‘107 discloses the use of water-soluble preservatives (i.e., present in the aqueous phase) [p. 7, 2nd full para.]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have combined the water-soluble preservative with the aqueous phase taught by Kim for the desirable effects of a preservative. One would have had an expectation of success because Kim and KR ‘107 both relate to a liquid crystal cosmetic emulsion. Additionally, in combining these elements one would have expected nothing more than predictable results because, when combined, each prior art element would have performed the same function as it had separately. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have prepared a liquid crystal cosmetic composition by the methods taught above, wherein the aqueous phase further comprises a preservative. The product according to instant claim 7 would have also been obvious because it is simply the result of the methods taught by the prior art.
Response to Arguments
1) On page 5 and 6 of their remarks, Applicant argues that none of the cited references disclose, teach or suggest the instant invention and that microcurrent generation is not an inherent or inevitable result of forming a liquid crystal emulsion. This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, while no references alone teaches the claimed composition and methods in their entirety, each reference does provide motivation to modify Kim and addresses each claimed element, as discussed above.
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully notes that it is not the position of the claim rejections that microcurrents are the inevitable result of forming a liquid crystal emulsion, rather microcurrents would results in a liquid crystal emulsion upon the addition of electrolytes such as pH adjusters as desired by Kim.
2) On page 6 of their remarks, Applicant argues that the roles of citric acid, sodium citrate and betaine in the prior art (i.e., pH adjusters and moisturizing agent) is different from the functional role expressly disclosed in the specification (i.e., chemical battery).
This argument is not persuasive. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In the present case a skilled artisan would have been motivated by the prior art to select the citric acid, sodium citrate and betaine as the pH adjusters and moisturizing agents desired by Kim. While they were selected for a different purpose, the citric acid, sodium citrate and betaine would have nevertheless behaved the same in composition as instantly claimed because chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112.01(II).
3) On page 6 of their remarks, Applicant argues the electrolyte system (citric acid, sodium citrate and betaine) provides unexpectedly high voltage and current. Applicant cites Table 1 (page18) and Table 2 (page 19) which compares the instant composition to a comparative example and to a commercial composition. Wherein the comparative example is the same as the instant composition, except it does not comprise the electrolyte system. Tables 1 and 2 of the instant specification are provide below.
PNG
media_image1.png
748
1044
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
274
988
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The argument of unexpected results is not persuasive insofar as it is not clear that the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected and the claims are not commensurate in scope with the results. Additionally, the instant specification does not disclose the electrolyte system provides unexpected results, rather the specification discloses “As shown in FIG. 3, the result showed that the liquid crystal cosmetic composition exhibited excellent electrical conductivity compared to a control group (galvanic cream from another company) and distilled water, which indicates that microcurrent was well formed. In addition, as shown in FIG. 4, the electrical conductivity measured on the skin, to which the liquid crystal cosmetic composition was applied, was superior to that of the control group (galvanic cream from another company) and distilled water, which indicates that the liquid crystal cosmetic composition produced microcurrents well” (pages 19-20, as originally filed).
With respect to the difference in properties, any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. MPEP § 716.02.
In In re Waymouth, 499 F.2d 1273, 1276, 182 USPQ 290, 293 (CCPA 1974), the court held that unexpected results for a claimed range as compared with the range disclosed in the prior art had been shown by a demonstration of "a marked improvement, over the results achieved under other ratios, as to be classified as a difference in kind, rather than one of degree." Compare In re Wagner, 371 F.2d 877, 884, 152 USPQ 552, 560 (CCPA 1967) (differences in properties cannot be disregarded on the ground they are differences in degree rather than in kind); Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) ("we generally consider a discussion of results in terms of ‘differences in degree’ as compared to ‘differences in kind’ . . . to have very little meaning in a relevant legal sense").
In this case, applicant results, showing marked improvement over results with the comparative example and the commercial galvanic composition constitute a difference in degree from what is expected, rather than a difference in kind, as required for a demonstration of unexpected results. Specifically, the comparative example, which produces voltage and current, differs from the inventive composition only by the absence of an electrolyte system (See Tables 1 and 2). The Examiner acknowledges the inventive composition, which comprises the claimed electrolyte system, displays increased voltage and current. However, the specification does not provide data demonstrating that the increased voltage and current is more than a concomitant result from increasing the cumulative electrolyte concentration. That is to say, a skilled artisan would have expected compositions comprising more electrolytes to be better electrical conductors and the instant specification has not demonstrated increased current and voltage over composition comprising a similar concentration of electrolytes (e.g., Preparation Example 1 of Kim at pages 9-10).
Similarly, the Examiner is unable to determine if the difference in properties between the inventive composition and “galvanic cream of other company” amounts to a difference in kind because the composition of the “galvanic cream of other company is not disclosed.
With respect to the scope of the claims, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support" (see MPEP 716.02(d) quoting In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980)). In the present case, the composition demonstrating allegedly unexpected results comprises 2% w/w betaine, 0.05% w/w citric acid and 0.05% w/w sodium citrate. The instant claims do not limit the amount of betaine, citric acid and sodium citrate. Therefore the claims are not commensurate in scope because without an explanation as to how, the amounts in the example composition cannot reasonably represent all possible amounts of betaine citric acid and sodium citrate that fall within the scope of the claims.
4) On page 7 of their remarks, Applicant argues the examiner relies on impermissible hindsight.
This argument is not persuasive. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLMAN WELLES whose telephone number is (571)272-3843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm ET.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at (571)272-6897. 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.
/C.T.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/WALTER E WEBB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612