DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first office action non-final rejection on the merits.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group IV claims 15-21 and 24 in the reply filed on 07/07/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims may be unified by the feature of growing seaweed or aquatic plants (See Pgs. 3 and 7), including the active provision of deepwater nutrients. This is not found persuasive because of the following:
Regarding Group I (claims 1-10) and Group II (claims 11-12), Claim 1 and Claim 11 do not share the technical feature of growing seaweed or aquatic plants because the method of claim 1 is only drawn to monitoring seaweed or aquatic plants. Instead, the shared technical feature is the steps of placing a mass or collection of the seaweed or aquatic plants in the body of water at a location where the body of water is at least 300 meters deep, and monitoring a flux of at least a portion of the mass or collection of the seaweed or aquatic plants. As noted in the restriction mailed 05/05/2025, this special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Slocum et al. (WO 2020132673 A1).
Regarding Group I (claims 1-10) and Group III (claims 13-14), Claim 1 and Claim 13 do not share the technical feature of growing seaweed or aquatic plants because the method of claim 1 is only drawn to monitoring seaweed or aquatic plants. Instead, the shared technical feature is the steps of placing a mass or collection of the seaweed or aquatic plants in the body of water at a location where the body of water is at least 300 meters deep, and monitoring a flux of at least a portion of the mass or collection of the seaweed or aquatic plants. As noted in the restriction mailed 05/05/2025, this special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Slocum et al. (WO 2020132673 A1).
Regarding Group I (claims 1-10) and Group IV (claims 15-21 and 24), Claim 1 and Claim 15 do not share the technical feature of growing seaweed or aquatic plants because the method of claim 1 is only drawn to monitoring seaweed or aquatic plants. Instead, the shared technical feature is the step of placing a mass or collection of the seaweed or aquatic plants in the body of water at a location. As noted in the restriction mailed 05/05/2025, this special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Slocum et al. (WO 2020132673 A1).
Regarding Group I (claims 1-10) and Group V (claims 22-23), Claim 1 and Claim 22 do not share the technical feature of growing seaweed or aquatic plants because the method of claim 1 is only drawn to monitoring seaweed or aquatic plants. Instead, the shared technical feature is the step of placing a mass or collection of the seaweed or aquatic plants in the body of water at a location. As noted in the restriction mailed 05/05/2025, this special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Slocum et al. (WO 2020132673 A1).
Regarding Group II (claims 11-12) and Group III (claims 13-14), Claim 11 and Claim 13 do not share the technical feature of growing seaweed or aquatic plants because the method of claim 11 is drawn to harvesting and sequestering seaweed and/or aquatic plants, not growing seaweed or aquatic plants. Instead, the shared technical feature is the steps of placing a mass or collection of the seaweed or aquatic plants in the body of water at a location where the body of water is at least 300 meters deep, and monitoring a flux of at least a portion of the mass or collection of the seaweed or aquatic plants. As noted in the restriction mailed 05/05/2025, this special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Slocum et al. (WO 2020132673 A1).
Regarding Group II (claims 11-12) and Group IV (claims 15-21 and 24), Claim 11 and Claim 15 do not share the technical feature of growing seaweed or aquatic plants because the method of claim 11 is drawn to harvesting and sequestering seaweed and/or aquatic plants, not growing seaweed or aquatic plants. Instead, the shared technical feature is the step of placing a mass or collection of the seaweed or aquatic plants in the body of water at a location. As noted in the restriction mailed 05/05/2025, this special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Slocum et al. (WO 2020132673 A1).
Regarding Group II (claims 11-12) and Group V (claims 22-23), Claim 11 and Claim 22 do not share the technical feature of growing seaweed or aquatic plants because neither the method of claim 11 nor the system of Claim 22 are drawn to growing seaweed. Claims 11 and 22 are drawn to harvesting and sequestering seaweed and/or aquatic plants, not growing seaweed or aquatic plants. Instead, the shared technical feature is the step of placing a mass or collection of the seaweed or aquatic plants in the body of water at a location. As noted in the restriction mailed 05/05/2025, this special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Slocum et al. (WO 2020132673 A1).
Regarding Group III (claims 13-14) and Group IV (claims 15-21 and 24), Claim 13 and Claim 15 do not share the technical feature of growing seaweed or aquatic plants because the limitation “for growing, monitoring, and sequestering macroalgae or aquatic plants” in Lines 1-2 of Claim 15 is a recitation of intended use of the claimed invention and 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. Instead, the shared technical feature is the step of placing a mass or collection of the seaweed or aquatic plants in the body of water at a location. As noted in the restriction mailed 05/05/2025, this special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Slocum et al. (WO 2020132673 A1).
Regarding Group III (claims 13-14) and Group V (claims 22-23), Claim 13 and Claim 22 do not share the technical feature of growing seaweed or aquatic plants because Claim 22 is drawn to harvesting and sequestering seaweed and/or aquatic plants, not growing seaweed or aquatic plants. Instead, the shared technical feature is the step of placing a mass or collection of the seaweed or aquatic plants in the body of water at a location. As noted in the restriction mailed 05/05/2025, this special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Slocum et al. (WO 2020132673 A1).
Regarding Group IV (claims 15-21 and 24) and Group V (claims 22-23), Claim 15 and Claim 22 do not share the technical feature of growing seaweed or aquatic plants because Claim 22 is drawn to harvesting and sequestering seaweed and/or aquatic plants, not growing seaweed or aquatic plants. Instead, the shared technical feature is a platform coupled to a seaweed-growing frame on or from which the seaweed or aquatic plants are grown, wireless signal detection equipment, and a wireless data signal transmitter, configured to transmit a wireless signal that is indicative of a depth, mass or flux of the sinking seaweed or aquatic plants. As noted in the restriction mailed 05/05/2025, this special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Slocum et al. (WO 2020132673 A1).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-14 and 22-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/07/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (See ¶2-3, ¶6, ¶22-23, ¶32, ¶39, ¶54-55, ¶58, ¶64-66, ¶70-71, ¶87, and ¶89) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
Figures 1-2 and 12 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Figs. 3A-3D, 4-7, and 11 are objected to because they contain excessive amounts of grayscale shading. Details of the claimed invention are difficult to discern, and the drawings are not of sufficient quality so that all details are reproducible in the printed patent. See MPEP 608.02; 37 CFR 1.84.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “100” and “320” have both been used to designate an “upwelling pipe”. Furthermore, reference characters “420” and “460” have both been used to designate “seaweed”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “140” has been used to designate both a “tether” (See ¶42) and a “net” (See ¶43). Furthermore, reference “225” has been used to designate both a “plurality of support structures” (See ¶44) and a “set of second openings” (See ¶46).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 150 and 330.
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
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Line 1, the phrase “Disclosed” is used. The abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc.
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶39, the phrase “C:P” should read “carbon-to-phosphorus (C:P)” for better clarity.
In ¶41, the limitation “mooring line 11” should read “mooring line 110” to keep the limitation consistent within the Specification.
In ¶42, the limitation “unwilling pipe 100” is unclear in light of ¶41 which states that reference “100” is a corrugated pipe.
In ¶66, the phrases “at 610”, “at 615”, “at 620”, “at 625”, and “at 630” should read “at step 610”, “at step 615”, “at step 620”, “at step 625”, and “at step 630” for better clarity.
In ¶67, the phrase “at 635” should read “at step 635” for better clarity.
In ¶68, the phrase “at 640” should read “at step 640” for better clarity.
In ¶69, the phrase “at 645” should read “at step 645” for better clarity.
In ¶69, the phrase “at 650” should read “at step 650” for better clarity.
In ¶69, the phrase “at 660” should read “at step 660” for better clarity.
In ¶77, the phrase “CO2e” should read “CO2”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (See ¶23). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The use of the terms “MARINE PERMACULTURE” (See ¶14, ¶41, and ¶86), “Verra” (See ¶40), “Regen Networks” (See ¶40), “Nori” (See ¶40), and “DYNEEMA” (See ¶87), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 17 Lines and 2-3 and 6-7, the limitation “the wireless detection equipment” should read “the wireless signal detection equipment” to keep the limitation consistent with the parent claim 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 15-21 and 24 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.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 recites the limitation “the sinking seaweed” in Line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 16-21 and 24 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Julian et al. (US 20220330506 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Julian discloses a system (100) for growing, monitoring and sequestering macroalgae or aquatic plants (¶15 states that system 100 supports seaweed cultivation and sequestration. ¶50 further states that system 100 comprises sensors that monitor the seaweed 104.), comprising:
A platform (102) coupled to a seaweed-growing frame on or from which the seaweed or aquatic plants are grown (106; ¶19 states that support structure 106 may be made of rigid frames and further states that seaweed 104 grows on the frame 106.),
Wireless signal detection equipment (¶34 states that system 100 comprises sensors and a controller 110, and ¶44 states that controller 110 receives sensor data wirelessly.), and
A wireless data signal transmitter (See ¶44 and ¶47; System 100 comprises communications system that transmits data wirelessly to controller 110.), configured to transmit a wireless signal that is indicative of a depth, mass or flux of the sinking seaweed or aquatic plants (See ¶41; System 100 comprises a single spectrum sonar that is used to calculate the biomass of the seaweed 104, which sinks as system 100 traverses a body of water [See ¶54].).
Regarding Claim 20, the system of Julian, as shown above, discloses the limitations of Claim 15.
Julian further teaches that the system (100) comprises one or more sensors configured to determine one or more weather conditions, a sea roughness and/or wave height, a water temperature, a depth, a pressure, or an amount or intensity of light (¶47 states that the sensors of system 100 are capable of monitoring water temperature.).
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.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julian et al. (US 20220330506 A1) in view of Fan et al. (CN 105165592 B).
Regarding Claim 16, the system of Julian, as shown above, discloses the limitations of Claim 15.
Julian further discloses that the system (100) comprises an acoustic or inductively coupled transmitter, transponder or transducer (¶44 states that controller 110 receives sensor data from the sensors and communications system wirelessly via electromagnetic induction. Therefore, the communications system serves as a transponder.), placed on or near the seaweed or aquatic plants or on a cable or rope leading to a surface platform (shown in Fig. 1; ¶34 states that the protrusion on system 100 houses controller 110, sensors, and communication system. Therefore, the communications system is placed near seaweed 104.).
The system of Julian discloses the claimed invention except for the fact the transmitter, transponder or transducer is a pulsed transmitter, transponder or transducer. Fan teaches a pulsed transmitter, transponder, or transducer (3; Chip 3 sends electric pulse signals to control motor 5 [see Pg. 4]. Therefore, chip 3 serves as a pulsed transmitter.). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the transmitter, transponder or transducer of the system of Julian with a pulsed transmitter, transponder or transducer as taught by Fan with reasonable expectation of success to reduce power consumption, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julian et al. (US 20220330506 A1) as modified by Fan et al. (CN 105165592 B) as applied to claims 15-16 above, and further in view of Jammer (US 20140316600 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, the system of Julian as modified by Fan, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 16.
Julian further teaches that the system (100) further comprises:
A battery (stated in ¶62; System 100 comprises a power generation system which includes batteries.), configured to power the wireless detection equipment and the wireless data signal transmitter (See ¶60; Power generation system serves to power the sensors and the communication systems that serve as transmitters [See ¶44 and ¶47].);
One or more renewable energy devices, configured to generate electricity (See ¶61; The power generation system can use a renewable energy system, such as solar or wind, to generate electric power.); and
A controller or control system configured to control the power to the wireless detection equipment and the wireless data signal transmitter (See ¶60; Power generation system can provide power to the wireless detection equipment and the wireless data signal transmitter. Therefore, the power generation system is capable of controlling the power to the wireless detection equipment and the wireless data signal transmitter.).
The system of Julian as modified by Fan teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that battery is on a surface platform. Fan teaches a battery (4) located on a surface platform (2; Fig. 1 shows that battery 4 is provided on the surface platform of buoy 2.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the battery of the system of Julian as modified by Fan be on a surface platform as taught by Fan with reasonable expectation of success to better protect the battery from water damage and make it more accessible to the user, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
However, the system of Julian as modified by Fan fails to explicitly state that the controller is configured to control the power from the one or more renewable energy devices to the battery.
Jammer teaches a controller (124) configured to control the power from the one or more renewable energy devices (Power Source A 104) to the battery (114; ¶79-80 state that controller 124 controls power from renewable energy device 104 [See ¶76] to battery 114.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Julian as modified by Fan to have the controller be configured to control the power from the one or more renewable energy devices to the battery as taught by Jammer with reasonable expectation of success to allow the user to save electricity (Jammer, ¶3).
Regarding Claim 18, the system of Julian as modified by Fan and Jammer, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 17.
Julian further teaches that the one or more renewable energy devices comprise one or more solar panels or one or more wave energy, ocean thermal energy and/or wind energy harvesting devices (See ¶61; The power generation system can use a renewable energy system, such as solar or wind, to generate electric power.).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julian et al. (US 20220330506 A1) in view of Jung et al. (KR 20190018083 A).
Regarding Claim 19, the system of Julian, as shown above, discloses the limitations of Claim 15.
Julian further discloses that system (100) further comprises: one or more winches (Stated in ¶37).
The system of Julian discloses the claimed invention except for the fact that the system comprises one or more motors configured to operate the one or more winches. Jung teaches one or more motors (510) configured to operate the one or more winches (520; See Fig. 1 and Pg. 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to provide greater efficiency and enhanced safety, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julian et al. (US 20220330506 A1) in view of Nakanishi et al. (WO 2020004078 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, the system of Julian, as shown above, discloses the limitations of Claim 15.
However, the system of Julian fails to explicitly state that the system further comprises a pipe configured to upwell water from a depth of at least 100 meters; and a pump configured to transport the water through the pipe.
Nakanishi teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a method for producing a living marine resource. Pg. 6 further states that the growth of seaweed is promoted.), the system of Nakanishi teaches a pipe (1) configured to upwell water from a depth of at least 100 meters (Abstract states that pipe 1 is an upwelling pipe. Pg. 3 further states that upwelling pipe 1 has a length of several hundred meters. Looking at Fig. 1, this means that pipe 1 is capable of upwelling water from a depth of at least 100 meters.) and a pump configured to transport the water through the pipe (Stated in Claim 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Julian to include a pipe configured to upwell water from a depth of at least 100 meters; and a pump configured to transport the water through the pipe as taught by Nakanishi with reasonable expectation of success to allow access to deep-water rich nutrients (Nakanishi, Pg. 2).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julian et al. (US 20220330506 A1).
Regarding Claim 24, the system of Julian, as shown above, discloses the limitations of Claim 15.
The system of Julian further teaches that the frame (102) is configured to carry seaweed up and down from a depth of at least 50 meters. Julian teaches that the frame (102) is capable of carrying seaweed (104) up and down from varying depths (See ¶4 and ¶6; The depth of frame 102 may be tailored as needed.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the frame be configured to carry seaweed up and down from a depth of at least 50 meters to access higher concentration of nutrients and cooler water (Julian, ¶5), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hystad (US 20240367923 A1) teaches a pumping system for moving a liquid, or a mixture of a liquid and one or more objects, from a collector device submerged in a body of water, to a receiving facility includes a first delivery line, a second delivery line and a pump unit.
Goul et al. (US 20220071092 A1) teaches a device for harvesting seaweed in an efficient, semi-automated manner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA A ALMEIDA BONNIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/A.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643