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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memari (US 20150245668 A1) in view of Willins (US 20050177466 A1).
Memari discloses electronic components in the hundreds in a loose state within a case (paragraph 259 as the e-cigarette elements are not rigidly secured or fastened to the device and are intended to removed to be used individually as desired). The Office notes that it is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide additional of the electronic components (such as hundreds to tens of thousands within one case) such as if the manufacturer would like to sell more product and/or the user desires to purchase and consume more product. Furthermore, the Office merely notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device because it has been held that the duplication of parts (to that of hundreds to tens of thousands) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range (such as hundreds to tens of thousands) because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Willins discloses:
1. An electronic component accommodation system (figs 1-5) comprising: a first accommodation case (202) including electronic components (the Office notes the primary reference already discloses electronic components; furthermore, in order to expedite prosecution for Applicant the Office notes that Willins also discloses are with respect to cigarettes. Though not required, Willins also discloses that the prior art includes goods and items; One of ordinary skill in the art, would have expected the device, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either electronic goods or non-electronic goods; furthermore, the Office notes that cigarettes are commonly replaced with electronic cigarettes such as for improved flavoring) accommodated therein and a first RFID tag including information relating to the electronic components inputted thereto (paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40); and a second accommodation case including a plurality of the first accommodation cases accommodated therein (204) and a second RFID tag including information relating to the electronic components inputted thereto (paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Memari in view of Willins (by placing several hundreds to tens of thousands of product within one case) in order to securely transport the contents for shipping and protection purposes such as from the point of manufacture to the post of display of purchase at store for selling cigarettes.
In order to expedite prosecution for Applicant, the Office notes that with respect to the sizing of the case, the base reference already provides one hundred elements within a case. It is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to expand the sizing of a case from holding one hundred to several hundred to tens of thousands in order to supply the purchaser with additional desired product within one case and thereby saving costs on separate packaging. Furthermore, the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the size/proportion because it has been held that a change in size proportion on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) In Gardnerv.TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
With respect to the amendment (including subject matter from cancelled claims 4 and 20), the prior art also discloses: wherein the first RFID tag is opposed to any one surface of the first accommodation case; the first accommodation case is structured such that the first RFID tag is in a vicinity of an outer surface of the second accommodation case or in the second accommodation case so as to be exposed to outside; and the second RFID tag is provided at a position not opposed to the first RFID tag (with respect to the positioning of the tags it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the location of the tags to a particular side externally, such as all on the same side from which the user intends to scan the device in order to more conveniently scan the device), wherein the first RFID tag and the second RFID tag are separated from each other by at least about 10 mm (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the location of the RFID chips so that they can function as intended. For example spacing would ensure that the proper information could be read. If no space is provided between the elements then the user would be unclear as to which tag was actually read).
Willins also discloses:
16. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 1, wherein the first accommodation case accommodates several hundreds to tens of thousands of the electronic components (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
2. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 1, wherein the information relating to the electronic components inputted to the first RFID tag includes at least one of information relating to the first accommodation cases, production information including information relating to performance of the electronic components, and unique number information associated with the production information (paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40).
3. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 1, wherein the information relating to the electronic components inputted to the second RFID tag includes at least one of information relating to the first RFID tag, production information including information relating to performance of the electronic components inputted to the first RFID tag, and unique number information associated with the production information (paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40).
5. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 1, wherein the information inputted to the first RFID tag and the information relating to the electronic components are read by reading the second RFID tag via a reader (capable of performing the above intended use, as in paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40).
6. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 1, further comprising a third accommodation case that includes a plurality of the second accommodation cases accommodated therein (206) and a third RFID tag including information relating to the electronic components inputted thereto (paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40).
7. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 6, wherein the information relating to the electronic components inputted to the third RFID tag includes at least one of information relating to the first RFID tag, information relating to the second RFID tag, production information including information relating to performance of the electronic components inputted to the first RFID tag, and unique number information associated with the production information (paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40).
8. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 6, wherein the second RFID tag is opposed to any one surface of the second accommodation case; the second accommodation case is structured such that the second RFID tag is in a vicinity of an outer surface of the third accommodation case or in the third accommodation case so as to be exposed to outside; and the third RFID tag is provided at a position not opposed to the first RFID tag or the second RFID tag (with respect to the positioning of the tags it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the location of the tags to a particular side externally, such as all on the same side from which the user intends to scan the device in order to more conveniently scan the device).
9. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 6, wherein the information inputted to the first RFID tag, the information inputted to the second RFID tag, and the information relating to the electronic components are read by reading the third RFID tag via a reader (capable of performing the above intended use, as in paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40).
10. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 6, further comprising a fourth accommodation case including a plurality of the third accommodation cases accommodated therein (208) and a fourth RFID tag including information relating to the electronic components inputted thereto (paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40).
11. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 10, wherein the information relating to the electronic components inputted to the fourth RFID tag includes at least one of information relating to the first RFID tag, information relating to the second RFID tag, information relating to the third RFID tag, production information including information relating to performance of the electronic components inputted to the first RFID tag, and unique number information associated with the production information (paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40).
12. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 10, wherein the third RFID tag is opposed to one surface of the third accommodation case; the third accommodation case is structured such that the third RFID tag is in a vicinity of an outer surface of the fourth accommodation case or in the fourth accommodation case so as to be exposed to outside; and the fourth RFID tag is provided at a position not opposed to any of the first RFID tag, the second RFID tag, or the third RFID tag (with respect to the positioning of the tags it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the location of the tags to a particular side externally, such as all on the same side from which the user intends to scan the device in order to more conveniently scan the device).
13. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 10, wherein the information inputted to the first RFID tag, the information inputted to the second RFID tag, the information inputted to the third RFID tag, and the information relating to the electronic components are read by reading the fourth RFID tag via a reader (capable of performing the above intended use, as in paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40).
14. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 1, wherein each of the electronic components have a rectangular or substantially rectangular parallelepiped shape with a length of about 1.2 mm or less (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape of because it has been held that a change in shape on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teaching. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
15. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 1, wherein the first accommodation case includes a rigid body made of resin (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material because it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teaching. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
17. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 1, wherein the first RFID tag includes a rectangular or substantially rectangular sheet made of resin, an RFID chip including a semiconductor integrated circuit, and a plurality of antennas to communicate with an external device (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape of because it has been held that a change in shape on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teaching. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). And It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material because it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teaching. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Antenna in paragraph 30 and circuit in paragraph 20)
18. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 1, wherein the second accommodation case is a rectangular or substantially rectangular box (as in fig 2) made of resin or cardboard (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material because it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teaching. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ).
19. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of first accommodation cases accommodated in the second accommodation case include several to several tens of the first accommodation cases (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memari (US 20150245668 A1) in view of Willins (US 20050177466 A1) and Faram (WO 2018104743 A2).
Memari discloses electronic components in the hundreds in a loose state within a case (paragraph 259 as the e-cigarette elements are not rigidly secured or fastened to the device and are intended to removed to be used individually as desired). The Office notes that it is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide additional of the electronic components (such as hundreds to tens of thousands within one case) such as if the manufacturer would like to sell more product and/or the user desires to purchase and consume more product. Furthermore, the Office merely notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device because it has been held that the duplication of parts (to that of hundreds to tens of thousands) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range (such as hundreds to tens of thousands) because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Willins discloses:
1. An electronic component accommodation system (figs 1-5) comprising: a first accommodation case (202) including electronic components (the Office notes the primary reference already discloses electronic components; furthermore, in order to expedite prosecution for Applicant the Office notes that Willins also discloses are with respect to cigarettes. Though not required, Willins also discloses that the prior art includes goods and items; One of ordinary skill in the art, would have expected the device, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either electronic goods or non-electronic goods; furthermore, the Office notes that cigarettes are commonly replaced with electronic cigarettes such as for improved flavoring) accommodated therein and a first RFID tag including information relating to the electronic components inputted thereto (paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40); and a second accommodation case including a plurality of the first accommodation cases accommodated therein (204) and a second RFID tag including information relating to the electronic components inputted thereto (paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Memari in view of Willins (by placing several hundreds to tens of thousands of product within one case) in order to securely transport the contents for shipping and protection purposes such as from the point of manufacture to the post of display of purchase at store for selling cigarettes.
In order to expedite prosecution for Applicant, the Office notes that with respect to the sizing of the case, the base reference already provides one hundred elements within a case. It is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to expand the sizing of a case from holding one hundred to several hundred to tens of thousands in order to supply the purchaser with additional desired product within one case and thereby saving costs on separate packaging. Furthermore, the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the size/proportion because it has been held that a change in size proportion on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) In Gardnerv.TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
With respect to the amendment (including subject matter from cancelled claims 4 and 20), the prior art also discloses: wherein the first RFID tag is opposed to any one surface of the first accommodation case; the first accommodation case is structured such that the first RFID tag is in a vicinity of an outer surface of the second accommodation case or in the second accommodation case so as to be exposed to outside; and the second RFID tag is provided at a position not opposed to the first RFID tag (with respect to the positioning of the tags it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the location of the tags to a particular side externally, such as all on the same side from which the user intends to scan the device in order to more conveniently scan the device), wherein the first RFID tag and the second RFID tag are separated from each other by at least about 10 mm (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the location of the RFID chips so that they can function as intended. For example spacing would ensure that the proper information could be read. If no space is provided between the elements then the user would be unclear as to which tag was actually read).
The prior art discloses the above. If there is any question to the above, in order to expeidte prosecution for Applicant, the Office notes that Faram discloses a distance of “at least about” 10mm (page 7: 30-page 8: 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view of Faram (by providing the above relative distance locations) in order to avoid significant interference.
Willins also discloses:
16. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 1, wherein the first accommodation case accommodates several hundreds to tens of thousands of the electronic components (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
2. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 1, wherein the information relating to the electronic components inputted to the first RFID tag includes at least one of information relating to the first accommodation cases, production information including information relating to performance of the electronic components, and unique number information associated with the production information (paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40).
3. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 1, wherein the information relating to the electronic components inputted to the second RFID tag includes at least one of information relating to the first RFID tag, production information including information relating to performance of the electronic components inputted to the first RFID tag, and unique number information associated with the production information (paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40).
5. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 1, wherein the information inputted to the first RFID tag and the information relating to the electronic components are read by reading the second RFID tag via a reader (capable of performing the above intended use, as in paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40).
6. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 1, further comprising a third accommodation case that includes a plurality of the second accommodation cases accommodated therein (206) and a third RFID tag including information relating to the electronic components inputted thereto (paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40).
7. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 6, wherein the information relating to the electronic components inputted to the third RFID tag includes at least one of information relating to the first RFID tag, information relating to the second RFID tag, production information including information relating to performance of the electronic components inputted to the first RFID tag, and unique number information associated with the production information (paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40).
8. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 6, wherein the second RFID tag is opposed to any one surface of the second accommodation case; the second accommodation case is structured such that the second RFID tag is in a vicinity of an outer surface of the third accommodation case or in the third accommodation case so as to be exposed to outside; and the third RFID tag is provided at a position not opposed to the first RFID tag or the second RFID tag (with respect to the positioning of the tags it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the location of the tags to a particular side externally, such as all on the same side from which the user intends to scan the device in order to more conveniently scan the device).
9. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 6, wherein the information inputted to the first RFID tag, the information inputted to the second RFID tag, and the information relating to the electronic components are read by reading the third RFID tag via a reader (capable of performing the above intended use, as in paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40).
10. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 6, further comprising a fourth accommodation case including a plurality of the third accommodation cases accommodated therein (208) and a fourth RFID tag including information relating to the electronic components inputted thereto (paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40).
11. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 10, wherein the information relating to the electronic components inputted to the fourth RFID tag includes at least one of information relating to the first RFID tag, information relating to the second RFID tag, information relating to the third RFID tag, production information including information relating to performance of the electronic components inputted to the first RFID tag, and unique number information associated with the production information (paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40).
12. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 10, wherein the third RFID tag is opposed to one surface of the third accommodation case; the third accommodation case is structured such that the third RFID tag is in a vicinity of an outer surface of the fourth accommodation case or in the fourth accommodation case so as to be exposed to outside; and the fourth RFID tag is provided at a position not opposed to any of the first RFID tag, the second RFID tag, or the third RFID tag (with respect to the positioning of the tags it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the location of the tags to a particular side externally, such as all on the same side from which the user intends to scan the device in order to more conveniently scan the device).
13. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 10, wherein the information inputted to the first RFID tag, the information inputted to the second RFID tag, the information inputted to the third RFID tag, and the information relating to the electronic components are read by reading the fourth RFID tag via a reader (capable of performing the above intended use, as in paragraph 19, 20, 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 30-31 40).
14. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 1, wherein each of the electronic components have a rectangular or substantially rectangular parallelepiped shape with a length of about 1.2 mm or less (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape of because it has been held that a change in shape on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teaching. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
15. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 1, wherein the first accommodation case includes a rigid body made of resin (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material because it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teaching. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
17. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 1, wherein the first RFID tag includes a rectangular or substantially rectangular sheet made of resin, an RFID chip including a semiconductor integrated circuit, and a plurality of antennas to communicate with an external device (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the shape of because it has been held that a change in shape on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teaching. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). And It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material because it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teaching. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Antenna in paragraph 30 and circuit in paragraph 20)
18. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 1, wherein the second accommodation case is a rectangular or substantially rectangular box (as in fig 2) made of resin or cardboard (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the material because it has been held that selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teaching. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ).
19. The electronic component accommodation system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of first accommodation cases accommodated in the second accommodation case include several to several tens of the first accommodation cases (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered, but are moot because in view of the amendment the search has been updated, new prior art has been identified and a new rejection has been made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D PERREAULT whose telephone number is (571)270-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-5:30pm. 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ANDREW D PERREAULT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights