DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the fluid filled cylinder of the suspension member as set forth in claim 5, wherein the suspension member (and thus the fluid filled cylinder) is separate and distinct from the tubular body, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Also, the valve positioned in the fluid filled cylinder, as set forth in claim 5, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains an implied phrase. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification does not describe .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because it recites "within other end" in labeled line 8. Appropriate correction is required. Applicant’s cooperation is respectfully requested in carefully reviewing the disclosure and correcting any further errors of which Applicant may become aware.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a locating member in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, the specification fails to describe such corresponding structure for "a locating member" in claim 4, and accordingly, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as set forth below.
If Applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
As stated above, the claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Claim 1 recites "wherein the unthreaded bolt (9) is connected to a suspension member (14) ..." in labeled line 9. This recitation is interpreted to mean "a suspension member (14)" is part of and required by the claimed device, particularly in light of the specification and dependent claims 3 and 5, which only set forth further limitations of the suspension member.
Further, claim 1 recites "wherein the unthreaded bolt (9) is connected to a suspension member (14) to counter compressive and expansive forces caused due to movement of an implement that is connected to the unthreaded bolt (9)." In this recitation, "an implement" is interpreted to be connected to the unthreaded bolt in an intended use of the claimed device with such an implement, and "an implement" is not interpreted to be part of or required by the claimed device. Additionally, Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites "an adjusting bar (12) used to rotate the tubular body (13) and threaded bolt (8) to adjust the length of the connector link (1)." Similarly, the specification recites:
"In an embodiment, the connector link further comprises an adjusting bar used to rotate the tubular body and threaded bolt to adjust the length of the connector link." (See Specification, labeled p. 2, lines 21-22.)
"In an embodiment, as shown in Figure 5B, the connector link (1) further comprises an adjusting bar (12) or a tummy bar used to rotate the tubular body (13) and threaded bolt (8) to adjust the length of the connector link (1)." (See Specification, labeled p. 7, lines 28-31.)
However, a connector link having an adjusting bar that rotates both the tubular body and threaded bolt to adjust the length of the connector link was not adequately described to convey possession of such a connector link. Rotation of both the tubular body and threaded bolt does not have an apparent effect "to adjust the length of the connector link" as described and claimed. As such, the connector link of claim 2 was not adequately described to convey possession thereof. Therefore, claim 2 fails the written description requirement and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Additionally, claims 6 and 7 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 2.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites "wherein the unthreaded bolt (9) is connected to a suspension member (14) to counter compressive and expansive forces caused due to movement of an implement that is connected to the unthreaded bolt (9)." It is unclear if "the unthreaded bolt (9) [being] connected to a suspension member (14)" (i.e., the connection of the unthreaded bolt to a suspension member) is "to counter compressive and expansive forces ..." or if "a suspension member (14)" itself is "to counter compressive and expansive forces ..." As such, the metes and bounds of this recitation in claim 1 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) such that clarification and correction are required. Additionally, claims 2-7 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites "an adjusting bar (12) used to rotate the tubular body (13) and threaded bolt (8) to adjust the length of the connector link (1)." It is unclear how rotating both the tubular body and threaded bolt can affect, let alone adjust, the length of the connector link. Thus, the metes and bounds of claim 2 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 2 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 2 is being further examined as though it reads "The connector link (1) as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an adjusting bar (12) used to rotate the tubular body (13) to adjust the length of the connector link (1)."
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the elastomeric pad (91)" in l. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 is being further examined as though it reads "The connector link (1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the suspension member (14) comprises an elastomeric pad (91), and wherein the elastomeric pad (91) comprises a locating member that prevents radial slippage of the elastomeric pad (91)."
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the spring member (10)" in l. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 is being further examined as though it reads "The connector link (1) as claimed in claim 2, further comprising a hydraulic shock absorber (92), wherein the suspension member (14) comprises a spring member (10), and wherein the spring member (10) is a helical suspension spring (10) which is supported by a reservoir tube (11) of the hydraulic shock absorber (92)."
Claim limitation "a locating member" (in claim 4) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as set forth above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In the specification, "a locating member" is mentioned in labeled p. 2, lines 25-26 and labeled p. 9, lines 11-13, and "locating means" is mentioned in labeled p. 8, lines 29-30. However, the specification fails to set forth any sort of structure corresponding to a locating member or locating means. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, Applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rasmussen (US 7,219,951).
Regarding claim 1, Rasmussen discloses a connector link (see Figs. 25 and 26) comprising:
a tubular body (including 60 and 62);
a threaded bolt (including 48) that is insertable within one end of the tubular body (at least within 62; see Figs. 25 and 26), wherein the threaded bolt (including 48) is configured to be threaded inside the tubular body (including 60 and 62) for adjustment of length of the connector link (see col. 9, lines 45-64); and
an unthreaded bolt (including 46, "not threaded" as set forth in col. 9, lines 49-51) is insertable within another end of the tubular body (see Figs. 25 and 26), wherein the unthreaded bolt (including 46) is connected to a suspension member (including 50) to counter compressive and expansive forces caused due to movement of an implement that is connected to the unthreaded bolt (see col. 9, line 65 - col. 10, line 5, wherein compressive force is countered as 50 "is compressed" as described, and the link is capable of countering compressive force to some extent; the manner or degree to which the claimed forces are applied is not specified in the claims).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Rasmussen discloses the suspension member (including 50) comprising an elastomeric pad (50 in Figs. 25 and 26 has the form of 50 in Figs. 9 and 10, which is "a resilient polymeric material which encircles the rod" as described in col. 7, lines 57-60), and wherein the elastomeric pad (50 being a resilient polymeric material which encircles 46) comprises a locating member (inner part or member of 50, including the inner surface of 50, that encircles 46) that prevents radial slippage of the elastomeric pad (the inner part or member of 50 encircles 46 such that 50 cannot slip radially relative to 46).
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Copperwheat (US 4,191,280).
Regarding claim 1, Copperwheat discloses a connector link (see Figs. 1 and 2) comprising:
a tubular body (including 4 and 21);
a threaded bolt (including 22) that is insertable within one end of the tubular body (see Fig. 2), wherein the threaded bolt (including 22) is configured to be threaded inside the tubular body (including 4 and 21) for adjustment of length of the connector link (see col. 3, lines 7-23); and
an unthreaded bolt (including or of 1) is insertable within another end of the tubular body (see Fig. 1), wherein the unthreaded bolt (including or of 1) is connected to a suspension member (including 8, 12, 13, 14, and/or 15) to counter compressive and expansive forces caused due to movement of an implement that is connected to the unthreaded bolt (see col. 2, lines 20-57).
Regarding claim 3, Copperwheat discloses the suspension member (including 8, 12, 13, 14, and/or 15) comprising a spring member (15).
Regarding claim 5, Copperwheat discloses the suspension member (including 8, 12, 13, 14, and/or 15) comprising:
a fluid filled cylinder (8);
a piston assembly (including 12) that is insertable into the fluid filled cylinder (see Fig. 1); and
a valve (including 13 and 14) positioned in the fluid filled cylinder (as shown by Applicant; further, 13 is shown positioned within 8 in Fig. 1) that regulates flow of the fluid into and out of the fluid filled cylinder between chambers within the fluid filled cylinder (see col. 2, lines 20-28).
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.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copperwheat in view of Coenen (US 6,367,369).
Regarding claim 2, Copperwheat discloses the connector link with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Copperwheat does not explicitly disclose an adjusting bar to rotate the tubular body in a manner consistent with its use. However, Coenen teaches a connector link comprising a tubular body (including 20 and 35), a threaded bolt (including 32), and an adjusting bar ("actuating lever" such as 33) used to rotate the tubular body to adjust the length of the connector link (see col. 3, lines 23-28).
Coenen is analogous because Coenen discloses a connector link comprising a tubular body, a threaded bolt, and an adjusting bar configured to rotate the tubular body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the link of Copperwheat with adjusting means as taught by Coenen in order to facilitate rotation (as of the tubular body) to change the length of the link. (See Coenen, col. 3, lines 23-28.) Additionally, providing Copperwheat with the adjusting bar of Coenen is a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the connector link of Copperwheat with the adjusting bar of Coenen) according to known methods to yield predictable results (as taught by Coenen). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 6, Copperwheat and Coenen disclose the connector link with respect to claim 2, as set forth above. Further, when considering the suspension member of Copperwheat to only be a spring member (15), Copperwheat also discloses a hydraulic shock absorber (including 8), wherein the suspension member (15) comprises a spring member (15), and wherein the spring member (15) is a helical suspension spring (15) which is supported by a reservoir tube (8) of the hydraulic shock absorber (see Fig. 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copperwheat in view of Coenen as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Malott (US 4,306,638).
Regarding claim 7, Copperwheat also discloses the hydraulic shock absorber (including 8) further comprising sealing means (11) within the tubular body (including 4 and 21) of the connector link (see Fig. 1). Neither Copperwheat nor Coenen explicitly disclose linear bearings as claimed. However, Malott teaches a connector link comprising a tubular body (including 58) and a hydraulic shock absorber, wherein the hydraulic shock absorber (including 40 and 54 and fluid chambers defined thereby) comprises linear bearings (including 46 and 56) within the tubular body (see Fig. 2), and wherein the tubular body and the linear bearings provide strength to resist load pressure occurring during vehicle operation (see col. 3, lines 34-48).
Malott is analogous because Malott discloses a connector link comprising a tubular body and a hydraulic shock absorber having linear bearings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with bearing means as taught by Malott in order to prevent bending of the shock absorber so that it is capable of stroking without binding. (See Malott, col. 1, lines 7-12.) Additionally, providing the above combination with the bearings of Malott is a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the connector link of the above combination and the linear bearings of Malott) according to known methods to yield predictable results (as taught by Malott). See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Additionally, it is noted that the "wherein" clause (i.e., "wherein the tubular body (13) of the connector link (1) and the linear bearings provide strength to resist load pressure occurring during vehicle operation.") of claim 7 discloses only functions performed by the claimed apparatus only under certain conditions (i.e., only "... during vehicle operation") that are not always required when considered under the BRI standard.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. EP 4386219 A1 is a European application corresponding to the instant application. Vollmer et al. (GB 2172082 A) discloses a connector link comprising a tubular body (including 32, 33, and/or 34), a threaded bolt (including 62), an unthreaded bolt (including 54), and a suspension member (including 38). von Allworden (US 4,153,269) discloses a connector link comprising a tubular body (including 1), a threaded bolt (of 2), an unthreaded bolt (including 7), and a suspension member (including or of 4). Muller et al. (US 5,823,271) teaches an adjusting bar (including 18) of a connector link, as set forth in claim 2. Read (US 3,038,545) teaches a connector link having elastomeric pads (51, 68, and 81).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/JFM/1/17/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671