DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 9, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harry Hotchkiss (US 4,411,374 – hereinafter Hotchkiss) in view of Verhoeven et al. (US 2009/0008409 A1 – hereinafter Verhoeven) and Ghazi et al. (US 2020/0170461 A1 – hereinafter Ghazi).
Re Claims 1-5, 8, 9, and 31:
Hotchkiss discloses a dispenser for dispensing sheet-type material or wet wipes, the dispenser comprising: a receiver (7, 20); a replaceable container (3, 10, 24) disposed in said receiver (7, 20), said replaceable container having a wall made of at least partially flexible material (film) and having a transparent region in said wall (see Drawings, depictions of transparent walls), said replaceable container (3, 10, 24) configured for receiving the sheet-type material within said wall (see Figs. 1-6d); but fails to teach a sensor device configured for receiving light coming from a vicinity of said transparent region of said replaceable container and for outputting electrical sensor signals in dependence on the received light; and an evaluation device for evaluating the electrical sensor signals.
Verhoeven teaches a container (9 or 15) having a wall (9) having a transparent region in said wall (9) (see paragraph [0023]), said container configured for receiving (product) within said wall (9); a sensor device (6 (light source), 8 (receiver)) configured for receiving light coming from a vicinity of said transparent region of said container and for outputting electrical sensor signals in dependence on the received light; and an evaluation device for evaluating the electrical sensor signals (see paragraph [0006]). Re Claims 3 and 4: Verhoeven teaches wherein said sensor (6, 8) device receives light having been reflected by said wall lying opposite said transparent region, or by a label attached opposite said transparent region, or by a printing disposed opposite said transparent region (see paragraph [0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hotchkiss with that of Verhoeven, to allow for automatically determining a level of product within a container. Examiner further notes that in regards to claim 3, the combination would be capable of providing upon said replaceable container inserted in the dispenser being empty as a container placed within is taught by Hotchkiss. The is likewise capable of reflecting upon sheet material, as sheet material has been taught by Hotchkiss. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of using one product or another.
Ghazi teaches a dispenser for dispensing sheet-type material or wet wipes, the dispenser comprising: a sensor device (116) configured for receiving light and for outputting electrical sensor signals in dependence on the received light; and an evaluation device (118) for evaluating the electrical sensor signals (see paragraph [0030]). Re Claim 8: Ghazi teaches wherein said evaluation device includes a device for wired or wireless transmission of date (see paragraph [0033]). Re Claim 9: Ghazi teaches wherein an evaluation device includes a control device for controlling devices or an empty indicator of the dispenser (see paragraph [0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hotchkiss with that of Verhoeven and Ghazi, to allow for a dispensing unit to house a sensor capable of automatically determining a level of product within the housing.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotchkiss in view of Verhoeven and Ghazi and further in view of Jo Ellen Marley (US 6,062,421 – hereinafter Marley) and A. L. Nelson (2,479,396 – hereinafter Nelson).
Re Claim 6:
Hotchkiss in view of Verhoeven and Ghazi discloses the device of claim 1 including said cover section having a removal opening for the sheet-type material (see Figs. 3c and 5e of Hotchkiss), but fails to teach which further comprises a resiliently driven or motor-driven thrust plate acting on a base section of said replaceable container and pressing said base section together with the sheet-type material disposed in said replaceable container towards a cover section of said replaceable container, and said cover section having a removal opening for the sheet-type material.
Marley further in view teaches a resiliently driven thrust plate (48) acting on a base section of a replaceable container and pressing said base section together with the sheet-type material disposed in said replaceable container towards a cover section of said replaceable container (see Figs. 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hotchkiss in view of Verhoeven and Ghazi, with that of Marley, to locate a product adjacent an opening.
Nelson teaches a resiliently driven or motor-driven thrust plate (C) (see Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hotchkiss in view of Verhoeven and Ghazi, with that of Marley and Nelson to provide an alternative thrusting means as known within the art to locate a product adjacent an opening.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotchkiss in view of Verhoeven and Ghazi and further in view of Mann et al. (US 2020/0253679 A1 – hereinafter Mann).
Re Claim 7:
Hotchkiss in view of Verhoeven and Ghazi discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein said sensor device detects at least one of an intensity or a spectral composition or a color of the received light and outputs electrical signals to said evaluation device in dependence on the detected intensity or spectral composition or color.
Mann further in view teaches wherein a sensor device detects at least one of an intensity or a spectral composition or a color of a received light and outputs electrical signals to an evaluation device in dependence on the detected intensity or spectral composition or color (see paragraphs [0067, 0173, 0451, 0470, and 0485]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hotchkiss in view of Verhoeven and Ghazi, with that of Mann to detect an arrangement of products based on the intensity of light.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 19, 28, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotchkiss in view of Herrin et al. (3,503,147 – hereinafter Herrin).
Re Claims 10, 11, 19, and 28:
Hotchkiss discloses a container for sheet-type material, the container comprising: a wall being at least partially formed of flexible material or a plastic film (see Figs. 2 and 3e-5C); said wall having a cover section and a base section disposed opposite said cover section, for receiving the sheet-type material between said cover section and said base section; said cover section having a removal opening (14) formed therein for removing the sheet-type material; and said wall or said cover section of said wall having at least one transparent region adjacent said removal opening (see Figs. 2 and 5a), but where if fails to specifically teach transparent.
Herrin teaches a transparent region (see col. 2 lines 30-36) adjacent a removal opening (78) (see Fig. 5). Re Claim 11: Herrin teaches wherein a base section appears to have at least one of an opaque or colored appearance in a region opposite said at least one of a transparent region of a cover section, as seen from inside a container (see col. 2 lines 30-36). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hotchkiss with that of Herrin to allow for visibility into a package for display purposes.
Re Claims 29:
Hotchkiss discloses a container for sheet-type material, the container comprising: a wall having a cover section and a base section disposed opposite said cover section, for receiving the sheet-type material between said cover section and said base section, said wall being at least partially formed of flexible material or of a plastic film (see Figs. 2 and 3e-5C); said cover section having a removal opening formed therein for removing the sheet-type material; said wall or said cover section of said wall having at least one transparent region adjacent said removal opening (see Figs. 2 and 3e-5C), but where if fails to teach transparent and a base section having at least one of an opaque or colored appearance in a region opposite said at least one transparent region of said cover section, as viewed from an inside of the container.
Herrin teaches wherein a base section having at least one of an opaque or colored appearance in a region opposite said at least one of a transparent region of a cover section, as seen from inside a container (see col. 2 lines 30-36). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hotchkiss with that of Herrin to allow for visibility into a package for display purposes.
Claim(s) 12 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotchkiss in view of Herrin and further in view of Charles A. L. Stephens (1,945,792 – hereinafter Stephens).
Re Claim 12:
Hotchkiss in view of Herrin discloses the device of claim 10, but fails to teach wherein said at least one transparent region is formed as a rectangular or round viewing window being surrounded by a region of said cover section appearing opaque or colored.
Stephens further in view teaches wherein at least one transparent region (32, 33) is formed as a rectangular or round viewing window being surrounded by a region of a cover section appearing opaque or colored (see Figs. 1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hotchkiss in view of Herrin, with that of Stephens, to allow for visibility into a package for display purposes, as well for allowing for an opening of said package.
Re Claims 30:
Hotchkiss discloses a container for sheet-type material, the container comprising: a wall having a cover section and a base section disposed opposite said cover section, for receiving the sheet-type material between said cover section and said base section, said wall being at least partially formed of flexible material or of a plastic film (see Figs. 2 and 3e-5C); said cover section having a removal opening formed therein for removing the sheet-type material; said wall or said cover section of said wall having at least one transparent region adjacent said removal opening (see Figs. 2 and 3e-5C), but where if fails to teach transparent and said at least one transparent region being formed as a rectangular or round viewing window surrounded by a region of said cover section appearing opaque or colored.
Herrin teaches wherein a base section having at least one of an opaque or colored appearance in a region opposite said at least one of a transparent region of a cover section, as seen from inside a container (see col. 2 lines 30-36). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hotchkiss with that of Herrin to allow for visibility into a package for display purposes.
Stephens further in view teaches wherein at least one transparent region (32, 33) is formed as a rectangular or round viewing window being surrounded by a region of a cover section appearing opaque or colored (see Figs. 1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hotchkiss in view of Herrin, with that of Stephens, to allow for visibility into a package for display purposes, as well for allowing for an opening of said package.
Claim(s) 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotchkiss in view of Herrin and further in view of Fernandez et al. (US 2017/0049668 A1 – hereinafter – Fernandez).
Re Claims 13-16:
Hotchkiss in view of Herrin discloses the device of claim 10, but fails to teach wherein said at least one transparent region has a transmittance for at least one of visible light or infrared light lying above 70%, wherein said at least one transparent region has a transmittance for at least one of visible light or infrared light lying above 90%.
Fernandez further in view teaches wherein said at least one transparent region has a transmittance for at least one of visible light or infrared light lying above 70% (see paragraph [0102]). Re Claim 14: Kapp further in view teaches wherein said at least one transparent region has a transmittance for at least one of visible light or infrared light lying above 90% (see paragraph [0102]). Re Claim 15: Fernandez further in view teaches a transmittance for at least one of visible light or infrared light being less than 20% (haze – see paragraph [0103]). Re Claim 16: Fernandez further in view teaches a region of said wall appearing opaque or colored and having a transmittance for at least one of visible light or infrared light being less than 5% (haze – see paragraph [0103]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hotchkiss in view of Herrin, with that of Fernandez, to allow for visibility into a package. Examiner further notes that one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re Claims 17 and 18:
Hotchkiss in view of Herrin and Fernandez does not disclose specific values for wherein said base section has an inside with a colored region having a reflectance for at least one of visible light or infrared light being more than 60% and wherein said base section has an inside with a colored region having a reflectance for at least one of visible light or infrared light being more than 80%. However, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 19-22, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotchkiss in view of Herrin and further in view of Deflander et al. (5,531,325 – hereinafter Deflander).
Re Claims 19-22, and 26:
Hotchkiss in view of Herrin discloses the device of claim 10, but fails to teach wherein: the container is formed as a flow pack having a plastic film joined, welded or glued along a longitudinal join line running in a longitudinal direction to form a tube; and said tube has opposite tube sections being joined, welded or glued to one another along a transverse join line running transverse to said longitudinal join line, forming a substantially closed container.
Deflander further in view teaches wherein: the container is formed as a flow pack having a plastic film joined, welded or glued along a longitudinal join line (line beneath 27, 29) running in a longitudinal direction to form a tube; and said tube has opposite tube sections being joined (sidewalls), welded or glued to one another along a transverse join line running transverse to said longitudinal join line, forming a substantially closed container (see Fig. 5). Re Claims 20 and 21: Deflander further in view teaches wherein a cover section has a dimensionally stable body and a remainder of said cover section having a removal opening (7, 10), and said dimensionally stable body is tightly joined to said remainder (see Figs. 2-3). Re Claim 22: Deflander further in view teaches wherein a plastic film of said wall is a two-ply plastic film formed of: an outer film of PET; and an inner film of PE (see col. 6 lines 50-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hotchkiss in view of Herrin, with that of Deflander, to provide an alternative type package for products as known within the art.
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotchkiss in view of Herrin and further in view of Tramontina et al. (US 6,769,565 B2 – hereinafter – Tramontina).
Re Claims 23 and 24:
Hotchkiss in view of Herrin discloses the device of claim 10, but fails to teach wherein said plastic film of said wall has a thickness lying between 40 μm and 300 μm, wherein said plastic film of said wall has a thickness lying between 80 μm and 120 μm.
Tramontina further in view teaches wherein said plastic film of said wall has a thickness lying between 40 μm and 300 μm (see col. 2 lines 1-45). Re Claim 24: wherein said plastic film of said wall has a thickness lying between 80 μm and 120 μm (see col. 2 lines 1-45). Tramontina further in view teaches. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hotchkiss in view of Herrin, with that of Tramontina since it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotchkiss in view of Herrin and further in view of Horel et al. (US 2013/0213995 A1 – hereinafter Horel).
Re Claims 25:
Hotchkiss in view of Herrin discloses the device of claim 10, but fails to teach wherein said plastic film is printed to be at least one of colored or opaque in sections.
Horel further in view teaches wherein said plastic film is printed to be at least one of colored or opaque in sections (see paragraph [0052]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hotchkiss in view of Herrin, with that of Horel, to provide a selection of material as known within the art for containers.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotchkiss in view of Herrin and Deflander and further in view of Jeffrey Scott Beer (US 6,003,670 – hereinafter Beer).
Re Claim 27:
Hotchkiss in view of Herrin and Deflander discloses the device of claim 26, but fails to teach wherein said layers are mutually adjacent, at least one of said layers is printed on an inside facing another of said layers, and at least one of said layers is formed of transparent material.
Beer further in view teaches wherein layers are mutually adjacent, at least one of said layers is printed on an inside facing another of said layers, and at least one of said layers is formed of transparent material (see claim 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hotchkiss in view of Herrin and Deflander with that of Beer, to allow for visibility of a printed area through a packaging for marketing or information purposes.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotchkiss in view of Verhoeven and Ghazi and further in view of Herrin et al. (3,503,147 – hereinafter Herrin).
Re Claims 32:
Hotchkiss in view of Verhoeven and Ghazi discloses a container for sheet-type material, the container comprising: a wall being at least partially formed of flexible material or a plastic film (see Figs. 2 and 3e-5C); said wall having a cover section and a base section disposed opposite said cover section, for receiving the sheet-type material between said cover section and said base section; said cover section having a removal opening (14) formed therein for removing the sheet-type material; and said wall or said cover section of said wall having at least one transparent region adjacent said removal opening (see Figs. 2 and 5a), but where if fails to specifically teach wherein a base section appears to have at least one of an opaque or colored appearance in a region opposite said at least one of a transparent region of a cover section, as seen from inside a container.
Herrin teaches wherein a base section appears to have at least one of an opaque or colored appearance in a region opposite said at least one of a transparent region of a cover section, as seen from inside a container (see col. 2 lines 30-36). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hotchkiss in view of Verhoeven and Ghazi with that of Herrin to allow for visibility into a package for display purposes.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotchkiss in view of Verhoeven and Ghazi and further in view of Charles A. L. Stephens (1,945,792 – hereinafter Stephens).
Re Claim 33:
Hotchkiss in view of Verhoeven and Ghazi discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein said at least one transparent region is formed as a rectangular or round viewing window being surrounded by a region of said cover section appearing opaque or colored.
Stephens further in view teaches wherein at least one transparent region (32, 33) is formed as a rectangular or round viewing window being surrounded by a region of a cover section appearing opaque or colored (see Figs. 1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hotchkiss in view of Verhoeven and Ghazi with that of Stephens, to allow for visibility into a package for display purposes, as well for allowing for an opening of said package.
Claim(s) 34 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotchkiss in view of Herrin and further in view of Verhoeven and Ghazi.
Re Claims 34 and 35:
Hotchkiss in view of Herrin discloses the device of claim 10, but fails to teach providing the dispenser with: a receiver receiving the container; a sensor device configured for receiving light coming from a vicinity of said at least one transparent region of the container and for outputting electrical sensor signals in dependence on the received light; and an evaluation device for evaluating the electrical sensor signals.
Verhoeven teaches a receiver receiving the container; a sensor device (6 (light source), a (receiver)) configured for receiving light coming from a vicinity of said transparent region of said container and for outputting electrical sensor signals in dependence on the received light; and an evaluation device for evaluating the electrical sensor signals (see paragraph [0006]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hotchkiss in view of Herrin with that of Verhoeven, to allow for automatically determining a level of product within a container. Examiner further notes that in regards to claim 3, the combination would be capable of providing upon said replaceable container inserted in the dispenser being empty as a container placed within is taught by Hotchkiss. The is likewise capable of reflecting upon sheet material, as sheet material has been taught by Hotchkiss. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of using one product or another.
Ghazi teaches a dispenser for dispensing sheet-type material or wet wipes, the dispenser comprising: a sensor device (116) configured for receiving light and for outputting electrical sensor signals in dependence on the received light; and an evaluation device (118) for evaluating the electrical sensor signals (see paragraph [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hotchkiss in view of Herrin with that of Verhoeven and Ghazi, to allow for a dispensing unit to house a sensor capable of automatically determining a level of product within the housing.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hotchkiss in view of Herrin and Stephens and further in view of Verhoeven and Ghazi.
Re Claim 36:
Hotchkiss in view of Herrin and Stephens discloses the device of claim 30, but fails to teach providing the dispenser with: a receiver receiving the container; a sensor device configured for receiving light coming from a vicinity of said at least one transparent region of the container and for outputting electrical sensor signals in dependence on the received light; and an evaluation device for evaluating the electrical sensor signals.
Verhoeven teaches a receiver receiving the container; a sensor device (6 (light source), a (receiver)) configured for receiving light coming from a vicinity of said transparent region of said container and for outputting electrical sensor signals in dependence on the received light; and an evaluation device for evaluating the electrical sensor signals (see paragraph [0006]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hotchkiss in view of Herrin and Stephens with that of Verhoeven, to allow for automatically determining a level of product within a container. Examiner further notes that in regards to claim 3, the combination would be capable of providing upon said replaceable container inserted in the dispenser being empty as a container placed within is taught by Hotchkiss. The is likewise capable of reflecting upon sheet material, as sheet material has been taught by Hotchkiss. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of using one product or another.
Ghazi teaches a dispenser for dispensing sheet-type material or wet wipes, the dispenser comprising: a sensor device (116) configured for receiving light and for outputting electrical sensor signals in dependence on the received light; and an evaluation device (118) for evaluating the electrical sensor signals (see paragraph [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Hotchkiss in view of Herrin and Stephens with that of Verhoeven and Ghazi, to allow for a dispensing unit to house a sensor capable of automatically determining a level of product within the housing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELVIN L RANDALL, JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-5373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-5 pm est.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/K.L.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651