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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 December 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carrioli et al. (US 5,437,517). Carrioli discloses a method for coupling pipe sections in a body of water by an apparatus comprising an alignment device (sonar head 72; rings of sensors 73 and 74), a locking device (locking flange 79; parallelograms 58, 59, 60, 61; hydraulic cylinder 62), a frame (slide guide 67, hanger 81) having an elongated portion (hydraulic cylinder 70 and piston 71) that extends along a longitudinal axis and supports the locking device (The flange 79 is positioned around the piston 71, and piston 71 supports the flange 79 so that the flange cannot rotate about a horizontal axis and the piston 71 supports the flange 79 so that the flange does not sink to the seafloor due to gravity.); and a retaining device (clamps 11, 16) carried by the frame, the method comprising: arranging the elongated portion of the frame at least partially within a first pipe section (pipe end 1") to align the first pipe section with respect to the longitudinal axis; inserting the alignment device (72, 73, 74) at least partially inside a second pipe section (pipe end 3") to align the first pipe section with the second pipe section; and locking, by the locking device (79), a position of the first pipe section with respect to the second pipe section, the locking device comprising a plurality of movable gripping units (58, 59, 60, 61) which are selectively actuatable (via hydraulic cylinder 62) to contact a wall of the second pipe section to lock a position of the elongated portion of the frame with respect to the second pipe section (Figs. 2 and 8 - 15; col. 9, line 32 - col. 10, line 56). Examiner takes the position that since one locking flange (79) is configured to lock a position of the first pipe section (1”) to the replacement pipe piece (85) and a second locking flange (79) is configured to lock a position of the second pipe section (3”) to the replacement pipe piece (85) (Figs. 10 - 13; col. 10, lines 49 - 56), the locking flanges (79) are configured to lock a position of the first pipe section with respect to the second pipe section when the first pipe section is aligned with the second pipe section by locking the first and second pipe sections in fixed positions relative to the replacement pipe piece.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 17 - 23 and 25 - 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrioli et al. (US 5,437,517) in view of Buchan et al. (US 8,939,702) and Silvestri et al. (US 4,304,505).
Regarding claim 17, Carrioli discloses an apparatus configured to couple pipe sections in a body of water, the apparatus comprising: a frame (working module 13, slide guide 67, hanger 81) comprising an elongated portion (hydraulic cylinder 70 and piston 71) extending along a longitudinal axis and configured to be arranged at least partially within a first pipe section (pipe end 1") to align the first pipe section with respect to the longitudinal axis; an alignment device (sonar head 72; rings of sensors 73 and 74) supported by the elongated portion (70, 71) of the frame (67, 81) and configured to be at least partially inserted inside a second pipe section (pipe end 3”) to align the first pipe section with the second pipe section; a locking device (flange 79) supported by the elongated portion (The flange 79 is positioned around the piston 71, and piston 71 supports the flange 79 so that the flange cannot rotate about a horizontal axis and the piston 71 supports the flange 79 so that the flange does not sink to the seafloor due to gravity.) of the frame and configured to lock a position of the first pipe section with respect to the second pipe section when the first pipe section is aligned with the second pipe section; and a retaining device carried by the frame (67, 81) and comprising a plurality of movable arms (clamps 11 and 16 each have hinged arms) configured to retain the first pipe section (1”) until the first pipe section is joined to the second pipe section, and release the first pipe section once the first pipe section is joined to the second pipe section (Figs. 2 and 10 - 15; col. 9, line 53 - col. 10, line 56). Carrioli fails to disclose the frame is connectable to an unmanned underwater vehicle; and the movable arms are hydraulically actuated. Buchan teaches a frame (lifting frame) is connectable to an unmanned underwater vehicle (remotely operated vehicle (ROV)) (col. 2, lines 64 - 65; col. 3, lines 8 - 10; col. 7, lines 16 - 22; col. 8, lines 28 - 45) to perform subsea operations on a subsea frame without the need for a diver. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the ROV as taught by Buchan to reduce the number of personnel required to operate the apparatus, thereby reducing operational costs. Buchan fails to teach the movable arms are hydraulically actuated. Silvestri teaches a clamp comprising movable arms (jaws 114) that are hydraulically actuated (hydraulic cylinders 115) (Figs. 8 and 9; col. 16, lines 26 - 36; col. 17, lines 11 - 32). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the retaining device comprising a plurality of hydraulically actuated arms as taught by Silvestri for the retaining device comprising a plurality of hinged arms as disclosed by Carrioli as a design consideration within the skill of the art. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007).
Regarding claim 18, Carrioli further discloses a handling device (motor 69; lead-screw and nut system, not shown) coupled to the elongated portion (70, 71) of the frame and configured to move the alignment device (72, 73, 74) and the locking device (79) in a direction substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 11; col. 9, line 64 - col. 10, line 4; col. 10, lines 33 - 36).
Regarding claim 19, Carrioli further discloses the handling device comprises an actuator (lead- screw and nut system, not shown) (col. 10, lines 2 - 4).
Regarding claim 20, Carrioli further discloses the alignment device (72, 73, 74) and the locking device (79) are aligned along the longitudinal axis (Figs. 2 and 11).
Regarding claim 21, Carrioli further discloses the alignment device comprises an expansible element (plug 75 comprising elastic material) configured to selectively expand to contact an inner surface of the second pipe section when the alignment device is at least partially inserted inside the second pipe section (Fig. 11; col. 10, lines 23 - 29).
Regarding claim 22, Carrioli further discloses a plurality of movable gripping units (parallelograms 58, 59, 60, 61; hydraulic cylinder 62) which are selectively actuatable to contact a wall of the second pipe section to lock a position of the elongated portion of the frame with respect to the second pipe section (Figs. 8 and 9; col. 9, lines 32 - 43).
Regarding claim 23, Carrioli further discloses a centering device (shoulder 76) arranged at one end of the elongated portion (70, 71) of the frame and shaped to facilitate the at least partial insertion of the alignment device (72, 73, 74) inside the second pipe section (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 25, Carrioli discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a floating module coupled to the frame. Buchan teaches a floating module (buoyancy device) coupled to a frame (lifting frame) to provide a means for handling the lifting frame (col. 2, lines 64 - 67). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the floating module as taught by Buchan for the crane (6) and cable (7) as disclosed by Carrioli as a design consideration within the skill of the art. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007).
Regarding claim 26, Carrioli discloses a junction system configured to join pipe sections in a body of water, the junction system comprising: an apparatus comprising: a frame (67, 81) comprising an elongated portion (70, 71) extending along a longitudinal axis and configured to be arranged at least partially within a first pipe section (1") to align the first pipe section with respect to the longitudinal axis, an alignment device (72, 73, 74) supported by the elongated portion of the frame and configured to be at least partially inserted inside a second pipe section to align the first pipe section with the second pipe section, and a locking device (79) supported by the elongated portion (The flange 79 is positioned around the piston 71, and piston 71 supports the flange 79 so that the flange cannot rotate about a horizontal axis and the piston 71 supports the flange 79 so that the flange does not sink to the seafloor due to gravity.) of the frame and configured to lock a position of the first pipe section with respect to the second pipe section when the first pipe section is aligned with the second pipe section; a retaining device carried by the frame and comprising a plurality of movable arms (hinged sections of each of clamps 11, 16 represent arms that can move relative to each other) configured to retain the first pipe section until the first pipe section is joined to the second pipe section, and release the first pipe section once the first pipe section is joined to the second pipe section; and a junction device (piece 85) carried by the apparatus and configured to join a first flange (coupling means 86) of the first pipe section to a second flange (coupling means 87) of the second pipe section (second pipe end 3") that faces the first flange when the first pipe section is aligned and locked with respect to the second pipe section (Figs. 2 and 10 - 15; col. 9, line 53 - col. 10, line 56). Carrioli fails to disclose the frame is connectable to an unmanned underwater vehicle; and the movable arms are hydraulically actuated. Buchan teaches a frame (lifting frame) is connectable to an unmanned underwater vehicle (remotely operated vehicle (ROV)) (col. 2, lines 64 - 65; col. 3, lines 8 - 10; col. 7, lines 16 - 22; col. 8, lines 28 - 45) to perform subsea operations on a subsea frame without the need for a diver. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the ROV as taught by Buchan to reduce the number of personnel required to operate the apparatus, thereby reducing operational costs. Buchan fails to teach the movable arms are hydraulically actuated. Silvestri teaches a clamp comprising movable arms (jaws 114) that are hydraulically actuated (hydraulic cylinders 115) (Figs. 8 and 9; col. 16, lines 26 - 36; col. 17, lines 11 - 32). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the retaining device comprising a plurality of hydraulically actuated arms as taught by Silvestri for the retaining device comprising a plurality of hinged arms as disclosed by Carrioli as a design consideration within the skill of the art. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007).
Regarding claim 27, Carrioli further discloses the junction device comprises a plurality of bolted junctions (see unlabeled bolts on 86, 87) configured to extend from opposite bands with respect to the first flange (86) and the second flange (87) and are selectively lockable to clamp the first flange and the second flange together (Fig. 15; col. 10, lines 49 - 56).
Regarding claim 28, Carrioli discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the unmanned underwater vehicle is configured to be operatively connected to the apparatus to control a position and an actuation of the apparatus in the body of water. Buchan teaches the unmanned underwater vehicle (ROV) is configured to be operatively connected to the apparatus to control a position and an actuation of the apparatus in the body of water (remotely operated vehicle (ROV)) (col. 2, lines 64 - 65; col. 3, lines 8 - 10; col. 7, lines 16 - 22; col. 8, lines 28 - 45) to perform subsea operations on a subsea frame without the need for a diver. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the ROV as taught by Buchan to reduce the number of personnel required to operate the apparatus, thereby reducing operational costs.
Claim 29 - 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrioli et al. (US 5,437,517) in view of Silvestri et al.
Regarding claim 29, Carrioli discloses a method for coupling pipe sections in a body of water by an apparatus comprising an alignment device (sonar head 72; rings of sensors 73 and 74), a locking device (locking flange 79), a frame (slide guide 67, hanger 81) having an elongated portion (hydraulic cylinder 70 and piston 71) that extends along a longitudinal axis and supports the locking device (The flange 79 is positioned around the piston 71, and piston 71 supports the flange 79 so that the flange cannot rotate about a horizontal axis and the piston 71 supports the flange 79 so that the flange does not sink to the seafloor due to gravity.); and a retaining device (clamps 11, 16) carried by the frame, the method comprising: arranging the elongated portion of the frame at least partially within a first pipe section (pipe end 1") to align the first pipe section with respect to the longitudinal axis; inserting the alignment device (72, 73, 74) at least partially inside a second pipe section (pipe end 3") to align the first pipe section with the second pipe section; locking, by the locking device (flange 79), a position of the first pipe section with respect to the second pipe section; and retaining, via a plurality of movable arms (hinged sections of each of clamps 11, 16 represent arms that can move relative to each other) of the retaining device, the first pipe section until the first pipe section is joined to the second pipe section and releasing the first pipe section once the first pipe section is joined to the second pipe section. (Figs. 2 and 10 - 15; col. 9, line 53 - col. 10, line 56). Carrioli fails to teach the movable arms are hydraulically actuated. Silvestri teaches a clamp comprising movable arms (jaws 114) that are hydraulically actuated (hydraulic cylinders 115) (Figs. 8 and 9; col. 16, lines 26 - 36; col. 17, lines 11 - 32). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the retaining device comprising a plurality of hydraulically actuated arms as taught by Silvestri for the retaining device comprising a plurality of hinged arms as disclosed by Carrioli as a design consideration within the skill of the art. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007).
Regarding claim 30, Carrioli further discloses an expansible element (plug 75 comprising elastic material) of the alignment device to cause the expansible element to contact an inner surface of the second pipe section (3") (Fig. 11; col. 10, lines 23 - 29).
Regarding claim 31, Carrioli further discloses actuating a plurality of movable gripping units (parallelograms 58, 59, 60, 61; hydraulic cylinder 62) of the locking device to contact a wall of the second pipe section to lock a position of the elongated portion of the frame with respect to the second pipe section (Figs. 7 and 8; col. 9, lines 32 - 43).
Regarding claim 32, Carrioli further discloses, joining a first flange (coupling means 86) of the first pipe section to a second flange (coupling means 87) of the second pipe section that faces the first flange (Figs. 14 and 15; col. 10, lines 49 - 56).
Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrioli et al. in view of Buchan et al.
Regarding claim 33, Carrioli discloses an apparatus configured to couple pipe sections in a body of water, the apparatus comprising: a frame (working module 13, slide guide 67, hanger 81) comprising an elongated portion (hydraulic cylinder 70 and piston 71) extending along a longitudinal axis and configured to be arranged at least partially within a first pipe section (pipe end 1") to align the first pipe section with respect to the longitudinal axis; an alignment device (sonar head 72; rings of sensors 73 and 74) supported by the elongated portion (70, 71) of the frame (67, 81) and configured to be at least partially inserted inside a second pipe section to align the first pipe section with the second pipe section; a locking device (79; parallelograms 58, 59, 60, 61; hydraulic cylinder 62) supported by the elongated portion (The flange 79 is positioned around the piston 71, and piston 71 supports the flange 79 so that the flange cannot rotate about a horizontal axis and the piston 71 supports the flange 79 so that the flange does not sink to the seafloor due to gravity.) of the frame and configured to lock a position of the first pipe section with respect to the second pipe section when the first pipe section is aligned with the second pipe section, the locking device comprising a plurality of movable gripping units (58, 59, 60, 61) which are selectively actuatable (via hydraulic cylinder 62) to contact a wall of the second pipe section to lock a position of the elongated portion of the frame with respect to the second pipe section (Figs. 2 and 8 - 15; col. 9, line 32 - col. 10, line 56). Carrioli fails to disclose the frame is connectable to an unmanned underwater vehicle. Buchan teaches a frame (lifting frame) is connectable to an unmanned underwater vehicle (remotely operated vehicle (ROV)) (col. 2, lines 64 - 65; col. 3, lines 8 - 10; col. 7, lines 16 - 22; col. 8, lines 28 - 45) to perform subsea operations on a subsea frame without the need for a diver. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the ROV as taught by Buchan to reduce the number of personnel required to operate the apparatus, thereby reducing operational costs.
Regarding claim 34, Carrioli discloses a junction system configured to join pipe sections in a body of water, the junction system comprising: an apparatus comprising: a frame (67, 81) comprising an elongated portion (70, 71) extending along a longitudinal axis and configured to be arranged at least partially within a first pipe section (1") to align the first pipe section with respect to the longitudinal axis, an alignment device (72, 73, 74) supported by the elongated portion of the frame and configured to be at least partially inserted inside a second pipe section to align the first pipe section with the second pipe section, and a locking device (flange 79; parallelograms 58, 59, 60, 61; hydraulic cylinder 62) supported by the elongated portion (The flange 79 is positioned around the piston 71, and piston 71 supports the flange 79 so that the flange cannot rotate about a horizontal axis and the piston 71 supports the flange 79 so that the flange does not sink to the seafloor due to gravity.) of the frame and configured to lock a position of the first pipe section with respect to the second pipe section when the first pipe section is aligned with the second pipe section, the locking device comprising a plurality of movable gripping units (58, 59, 60, 61) which are selectively actuatable (via hydraulic cylinder 62) to contact a wall of the second pipe section to lock a position of the elongated portion of the frame with respect to the second pipe section; and a junction device (piece 85) carried by the apparatus and configured to join a first flange (coupling means 86) of the first pipe section to a second flange (coupling means 87) of the second pipe section (second pipe end 3") that faces the first flange when the first pipe section is aligned and locked with respect to the second pipe section (Figs. 2 and 8 - 15; col. 9, line 32 - col. 10, line 56). Carrioli fails to disclose the frame is connectable to an unmanned underwater vehicle. Buchan teaches a frame (lifting frame) is connectable to an unmanned underwater vehicle (remotely operated vehicle (ROV)) (col. 2, lines 64 - 65; col. 3, lines 8 - 10; col. 7, lines 16 - 22; col. 8, lines 28 - 45) to perform subsea operations on a subsea frame without the need for a diver. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the ROV as taught by Buchan to reduce the number of personnel required to operate the apparatus, thereby reducing operational costs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Carrioli fails to teach the clamping arms are not hydraulically activated. Examiner replies that Silvestri has been relied upon to teach a clamp comprising hydraulically-actuated arms. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the retaining device comprising a plurality of hydraulically actuated arms as taught by Silvestri for the retaining device comprising a plurality of hinged arms as disclosed by Carrioli as a design consideration within the skill of the art. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007).
Applicant argues that Carrioli does not disclose a retaining device configured to retain the first pipe section because the clamp 16 of Carrioli is only designed to retain the cut end 1” of the pipeline. Examiner replies that the cut end 1” as disclosed by Carrioli has been interpreted as the first pipe section and since the clamp 16 of Carrioli is designed to retain the cut end 1” of the pipeline, as admitted by Applicant, Carrioli teaches a retaining device comprising a clamp configured to retain the first pipe section.
Applicant argues that the locking flange 79 as taught by Carrioli is not part of the head alignment apparatus 68 and therefore, the locking flange 79 is not configured to lock a position of a piston 71 with respect to a further pipe section. Examiner notes that claims 33 to 35 recite “a locking device supported by the elongated portion of the frame and configured to lock a position of the first pipe section with respect to the second pipe section when the first pipe section is aligned with the second pipe section”. Examiner takes the position that since one locking flange (79) is configured to lock a position of the first pipe section (1”) to the replacement pipe piece (85) and a second locking flange (79) is configured to lock a position of the second pipe section (3”) to the replacement pipe piece (85) (Figs. 10 - 13; col. 10, lines 49 - 56), the locking flanges (79) are configured to lock a position of the first pipe section with respect to the second pipe section when the first pipe section is aligned with the second pipe section by locking the first and second pipe sections in fixed positions relative to the replacement pipe piece.
Applicant argues that the locking flange 79 as taught by Carrioli is not provided with a plurality of selectively actuated movable gripping units that are configured to contact a wall of the second pipe section to lock a position of the elongated portion of the frame with respect to the second pipe section. Examiner has interpreted the apparatus as disclosed by Carrioli as including a locking device comprising two portions; one portion of the locking device comprises a locking flange (79) that is configured to lock a position of the first pipe section (1”) with respect to the second pipe section (3”), and a second portion of the locking device comprises a plurality of selectively actuated movable gripping units (parallelograms 58, 59, 60, 61 that are selectively actuated by hydraulic cylinder 62) that are configured to contact a wall of the second pipe section to lock a position of the elongated portion of the frame with respect to the second pipe section (Figs. 8 and 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
3/10/2026