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 .
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment, filed on January 15th, 2026, the following are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on November 4th, 2025.
Objections of claims 20, 21 and 28-33 due to minor informalities
Rejections of claims 28, 29, 32 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Rejections of claims 20-22, 28, 29 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) are withdrawn in view of the amendments
Rejections of claims 23, 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of the amendments
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in view of the amendments filed January 15th, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amends claim 20 to incorporate the limitations of cancelled claim 33 and argues the prior art of record, in particular Dorfinger, fails to disclosure or suggest that the height of said hollow cavity is contoured through said dental arch in a configuration to facilitate flow of residual resin out of said hollow cavity during centrifugation on a carrier platform when mounted in any of a plurality of positions on said carrier platform. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that the claims are directed to an apparatus/a system and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. 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. Furthermore, it is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in an apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details. Claim 20 is drawn a hollow mold apparatus and claims an intended use of “during centrifugation on a carrier platform when mounted in any of a plurality of positions on said carrier platform”. Dorfinger teaches in [0132-0133] that sizes and shapes of structural features, such as the concave surface area in the hollow dental mold, may be shaped according to centrifugal forces and time. These include small geometrical features that can be located at regions where resin accumulation is predicted to occur, such as concave surfaces that face a centrifuge rotor’s center of mass during centrifugation. Dorfinger further gives an example of these small geometrical features as apertures for draining residual resin ([0161]). When centrifuging to remove the residual resin, the hollow dental mold would be on a platform that undergoes the centrifugal trajectory as evidenced by Fig. 4C. From these teachings of Dorfinger one of ordinary skill in that art would recognize that a size, such as the height, of said hollow cavity may be contoured through said dental arch in a configuration to facilitate a flow of residual resin out of said hollow cavity during centrifugation as required by the claimed limitation. As such, the combination of Graham and Dorfinger teaches all the limitations of amended claim 20.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate a new grounds of rejection provided below.
New Grounds of Rejection
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 28:
line 4, “the first back portion” should say “the first opposing back portion”
line 5, “the second back portion” should say “the second opposing back portion”
Should be all corrected for claim language consistency.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that the claims are directed to an apparatus/a system and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. 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. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details.
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 20-23, 25, 26, 28-32 and 38 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 20 recites the limitations “the shape of a dental arch”, “the height of said hollow cavity” and “the same throughout said dental arch”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitations “the shape of a dental arch”, “the height of each residual resin drain opening” and “the height of said hollow cavity”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
The dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
Claims 20-22 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (US 20190255774 A1; hereafter Graham), in view of Dorfinger et al. (WO 2022109191 A1; hereafter Dorfinger).
Regarding claim 20, Graham discloses a hollow mold ([0023]; dental model with at least one internal cavity) produced by additive manufacturing from a polymerizable resin ([0006]; the dental model is produced by additive manufacturing with a light polymerizable resin), said hollow mold having an external surface portion (Fig. 5A-5B; [0079]; outer surface of the dental model 11) configured in the shape of a dental arch (Fig. 5A-5B; [0079]; dental model 11 has upper portion in the shape of the dental arch of a human patient) and a bottom portion (Fig. 5A-5B; [0079]; bottom portion of the dental model 11) having a hollow cavity therein (Fig. 1A, 4-5B; bottom portion of the dental model 11 has internal cavities 12’), said hollow mold having a plurality of residual resin drain openings (Fig. 5A-5B; [0079]; wash channels 13) formed therein, each residual resin drain opening communicating between or extending between said hollow cavity and said external surface portion ([0021]; wash channels provide fluid communication between the at least one internal cavity and the outer surface),
wherein said hollow mold is formed on a build platform ([0006]; the dental model is formed on a carrier platform having a flat surface) and oriented horizontally on said build platform with said bottom portion on said build platform ([0076]; the bottom portion of the dental model 11 is adhered to the flat carrier platform).
Graham does not explicitly disclose the height of said hollow cavity is: (i) substantially the same throughout said dental arch, or (ii) contoured through said dental arch in a configuration to facilitate a flow of residual resin out of said hollow cavity during centrifugation on a carrier platform when mounted in any of a plurality of positions on said carrier platform.
However, Dorfinger teaches a hollow dental mold ([0008]; dental appliance may be additively manufactured aligner mold) produced by additive manufacturing from a polymerizable resin ([0193]; additive manufacturing by photopolymerization), said hollow mold having an external surface ([0008]; external surface of the dental appliance), a bottom portion ([0008]; bottom of the dental appliance) having a hollow cavity therein ([0008]; dental appliance may include cavities) and a plurality of openings formed therein ([0008]; apertures). Dorfinger teaches in [0132-0133] that sizes and shapes of structural features, such as the concave surface area in the hollow dental mold, may be shaped according to centrifugal forces and time. These include small geometrical features that can be located at regions where resin accumulation is predicted to occur, such as concave surfaces that face a centrifuge rotor’s center of mass during centrifugation. Dorfinger further gives an example of these small geometrical features as apertures for draining residual resin ([0161]). When centrifuging to remove the residual resin, the hollow dental mold would be on a platform that undergoes the centrifugal trajectory as evidenced by Fig. 4C. From these teachings of Dorfinger one of ordinary skill in that art would recognize that a size, such as the height, of said hollow cavity may be contoured through said dental arch in a configuration to facilitate a flow of residual resin out of said hollow cavity during centrifugation as required by the claimed limitation.
Graham and Dorfinger are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additively manufactured dental models. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Graham with the teachings of Dorfinger to provide the height of said hollow cavity is contoured through said dental arch in a configuration to facilitate a flow of residual resin out of said hollow cavity during centrifugation on a carrier platform when mounted in any of a plurality of positions on said carrier platform. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would reduce the centrifugation time and improve the cleaning efficiency of the centrifugation when removing residual resin from the hollow dental mold (Dorfinger [0134]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Graham discloses the mold of claim 20, wherein Graham further discloses said external surface portion includes an upper portion (Fig. 5A-5B; [0079]; upper portion 15) and a side portion (Marked Fig. 5A; side portion), and with said bottom portion having a base surface portion (Fig. 4; [0079]; bottom surface 12), with said residual resin drain openings formed in said side portion (Marked Fig. 5A; wash channels 13 are formed in side portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
477
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, modified Graham discloses the mold of claim 21, wherein Graham further discloses said base surface portion is planar ([0023]; bottom surface is flat planar).
Regarding claim 30, modified Graham discloses the mold of claim 21.
Graham does not explicitly disclose said residual resin drain openings have an average diameter of from 0.6 to 1.3 millimeters and are spaced apart from one another an average of from 2 to 8 millimeters.
However, Dorfinger teaches a hollow dental mold ([0008]; dental appliance may be additively manufactured aligner mold) produced by additive manufacturing from a polymerizable resin ([0193]; additive manufacturing by photopolymerization), said hollow mold having an external surface ([0008]; external surface of the dental appliance), a bottom portion ([0008]; bottom of the dental appliance) having a hollow cavity therein ([0008]; dental appliance may include cavities) and a plurality of openings formed therein ([0008]; apertures), wherein said openings can have an average diameter of from 0.6 to 1.3 millimeters ([0159]; drains may range from about 1-2 mm in diameter; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05).
Graham and Dorfinger are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additively manufactured dental models. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Graham with the teachings of Dorfinger to provide said residual resin drain openings have an average diameter of from 0.6 to 1.3 millimeters. Doing so would allow the residual resin to fully drain from the hollow dental mold during centrifugation (Dorfinger [0162]).
Furthermore, Dorfinger teaches the sizes and locations of the apertures can be determined based on viscosity/flowability of the resin, resulting structural stiffness changes, centrifugal force and/or centrifugation time, available surface area of the concave surfaces, and/or any other parameters or combinations thereof ([0162]). For example, it may be determined that there are ranges of acceptable centrifugal forces and centrifugation times for draining the residual resin in the formed dental appliance, such that with these parameters sizes and locations of the apertures may be determined ([0162]). From these teachings, the size and location of the plurality of residual resin drain openings of modified Graham would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize, by routine experimentation, the size and location of the plurality of residual resin drain openings for the purposes of avoiding, reducing or minimizing deformation (Dorfinger [0162]), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al. (US 20190255774 A1; hereafter Graham), in view of Dorfinger et al. (WO 2022109191 A1; hereafter Dorfinger) as applied to claim 22, and further in view of Chavez et al. (US 20200306017 A1; hereafter Chavez).
Regarding claim 23, modified Graham discloses the mold of claim 22.
Modified Graham does not disclose a grid formed from struts, the grid formed in and supporting said hollow cavity.
However, in the analogous art Chavez teaches a hollow dental mold (Fig. 11; [0057]; dental appliance that may be a 3D printed aligner thermoforming mold) produced by additive manufacturing from a polymerizable resin ([0057]; 3D printed by stereolithography), said hollow mold having an external surface (Fig. 11, 18A-21; exterior surface of dental appliance 100), a bottom portion (Fig. 11, 18A-21; [0063]; extensions 113) having a hollow cavity therein ([0064]; a hollow portion within the extension) and a plurality of openings formed therein (Fig. 11, 18A-21; [0063, 0114]; a plurality of perforations/apertures 122, 1820), wherein a grid (Fig. 19; [0106, 0117]; internal stiffeners 1850) formed from struts (Fig. 19; [0106, 0117]; one or more struts) is formed in and supporting said hollow cavity (Fig. 19; [0106, 0117]; internal stiffeners support interior of hollow portion within the extension).
Graham and Chavez are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additively manufactured dental models. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Graham with the teachings of Chavez to provide a grid formed from struts, the grid formed in and supporting said hollow cavity. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would add strength to the hollow mold and allow the hollow mold to be removed from the build platform more quickly (Chavez [0106, 0108]).
Regarding claim 25, modified Graham discloses the mold of claim 23.
Modified Graham does not disclose said struts have top, bottom, and side surface portions, wherein said bottom surface portions are coplanar with said base surface portion, and wherein: said top surface portions are configured to promote drainage of residual resin; and/or said struts include resin drain openings formed therein.
However, Chavez further teaches said struts have top, bottom, and side surface portions (Fig. 20-21; [0117]; internal stiffeners 1850, comprised of one or more struts, have top, bottom and side surface portions), wherein said bottom surface portions are coplanar with a base surface portion of the bottom portion (Fig. 21; bottom surface portions of internal stiffeners 1850 are coplanar with a bottom surface of extensions 113), and wherein said top surface portions are configured to promote drainage of residual resin (Fig. 20-21; the top surface portions of internal stiffeners 1850 slope downward, which would promote drainage of fluid through apertures 1820).
Graham and Chavez are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additively manufactured dental models. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Graham with the teachings of Chavez to provide said struts have top, bottom, and side surface portions, wherein said bottom surface portions are coplanar with said base surface portion, and wherein said top surface portions are configured to promote drainage of residual resin. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would add strength to the hollow mold and allow the hollow mold to be removed from the build platform more quickly (Chavez [0106, 0108]).
Regarding claim 26, modified Graham discloses the mold of claim 23, wherein Graham further discloses at least 30 percent of the total volume of said hollow mold is occupied by said hollow cavity (Fig. 4-5B; in the disclosed photographed examples, at least 30% of the dental model is occupied by internal cavities 12’).
Regarding claim 28, modified Graham discloses the mold of claims 22, wherein Graham further discloses:
said dental arch has first and second opposing back portions (Marked Fig. 5B; first and second opposing back portions), a front portion (Marked Fig. 5A; front portion), and first and second opposite lateral portions (Marked Fig. 5B; first and second opposite lateral portions), the first opposite lateral portion between the first back portion and the front portion (Marked Fig. 5B), the second opposite lateral portion between the second back portion and the front portion (Marked Fig. 5B);
said hollow cavity extends from said first opposing back portion to said second opposing back portion through said front portion and said opposite lateral portions (Fig. 4-5B; internal cavities 12’ extend throughout the respective portions of the dental arch);
and each of said opposite lateral portions and said front portion includes at least one residual resin drain opening (Marked Fig. 5A-5B; first and second opposite lateral portions and front portion have at least one wash channel 13).
PNG
media_image2.png
558
955
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Graham does not explicitly disclose said hollow cavity extends continuously.
However, in the analogous art Chavez teaches a hollow dental mold (Fig. 11; [0057]; dental appliance that may be a 3D printed aligner thermoforming mold) produced by additive manufacturing from a polymerizable resin ([0057]; 3D printed by stereolithography), said hollow mold having an external surface (Fig. 11, 18A-21; exterior surface of dental appliance 100), a bottom portion (Fig. 11, 18A-21; [0063]; extensions 113) having a hollow cavity therein ([0064]; a hollow portion within the extension) and a plurality of openings formed therein (Fig. 11, 18A-21; [0063, 0114]; a plurality of perforations/apertures 122, 1820). Chavez further teaches the hollow cavity extends continuously (Fig. 10; [0064]).
Graham and Chavez are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additively manufactured dental models. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Graham with the teachings of Chavez to provide said hollow cavity extends continuously. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would structural strength to allow handling and removal from the 3D printer (Chavez [0065]).
Regarding claim 29, modified Graham discloses the mold of claim 28, wherein Graham further discloses at least one of said front portion and said pair of opposite lateral portions includes two residual resin drain openings (Marked Fig. 5A-5B; front portion and first and second opposite lateral portions comprise at least two wash channels 13).
Regarding claim 31, modified Graham discloses the mold of claim 28, wherein Graham further discloses each of said opposing back portions includes either a drain opening or a vent opening (Marked Fig. 5B; first and second opposing back portions comprise wash channels 13, wherein the wash channels 13 function as a drain [0088] or vent [0084]).
Regarding claim 38, modified Graham discloses the mold of claim 28, wherein Graham further discloses said first opposing back portion includes a vent opening that extends longitudinally from said hollow cavity to an edge of said first opposing back portion (Fig. 5A and Marked Fig. 5B); and/or said second opposing back portion includes a vent opening that extends longitudinally from said hollow cavity to an edge of said second opposing back portion (Fig. 5A and Marked Fig. 5B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 32 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the references of the record nor any other prior art, taken alone or in combination, teach or fairly suggest the cumulative limitations of claim 32.
Regarding claim 32, Graham discloses a hollow mold ([0023]; dental model with at least one internal cavity) produced by additive manufacturing from a polymerizable resin ([0006]; the dental model is produced by additive manufacturing with a light polymerizable resin), said hollow mold having an external surface portion (Fig. 5A-5B; [0079]; outer surface of the dental model 11) configured in the shape of a dental arch (Fig. 5A-5B; [0079]; dental model 11 has upper portion in the shape of the dental arch of a human patient) and a bottom portion (Fig. 5A-5B; [0079]; bottom portion of the dental model 11) having a hollow cavity therein (Fig. 1A, 4-5B; bottom portion of the dental model 11 has internal cavities 12’), said hollow mold having a plurality of residual resin drain openings (Fig. 5A-5B; [0079]; wash channels 13) formed therein, each residual resin drain opening communicating between or extending between said hollow cavity and said external surface portion ([0021]; wash channels provide fluid communication between the at least one internal cavity and the outer surface), wherein said hollow mold is formed on a build platform ([0006]; the dental model is formed on a carrier platform having a flat surface) and oriented horizontally on said build platform with said bottom portion on said build platform ([0076]; the bottom portion of the dental model 11 is adhered to the flat carrier platform).
Chavez teaches a hollow dental mold (Fig. 11; [0057]; dental appliance that may be a 3D printed aligner thermoforming mold) produced by additive manufacturing from a polymerizable resin ([0057]; 3D printed by stereolithography), said hollow mold having an external surface (Fig. 11, 18A-21; exterior surface of dental appliance 100), a bottom portion (Fig. 11, 18A-21; [0063]; extensions 113) having a hollow cavity therein ([0064]; a hollow portion within the extension) and a plurality of openings formed therein (Fig. 11, 18A-21; [0063, 0114]; a plurality of perforations/apertures 122, 1820), wherein a grid (Fig. 19; [0106, 0117]; internal stiffeners 1850) formed from struts (Fig. 19; [0106, 0117]; one or more struts) is formed in and supporting said hollow cavity (Fig. 19; [0106, 0117]; internal stiffeners support interior of hollow portion within the extension). Chavez further teaches said struts have top, bottom, and side surface portions (Fig. 20-21; [0117]; internal stiffeners 1850, comprised of one or more struts, have top, bottom and side surface portions), wherein said bottom surface portions are coplanar with a base surface portion of the bottom portion (Fig. 21; bottom surface portions of internal stiffeners 1850 are coplanar with a bottom surface of extensions 113), and wherein said top surface portions are configured to promote drainage of residual resin (Fig. 20-21; the top surface portions of internal stiffeners 1850 slope downward, which would promote drainage of fluid through apertures 1820).
Dorfinger teaches a hollow dental mold ([0008]; dental appliance may be additively manufactured aligner mold) produced by additive manufacturing from a polymerizable resin ([0193]; additive manufacturing by photopolymerization), said hollow mold having an external surface ([0008]; external surface of the dental appliance), a bottom portion ([0008]; bottom of the dental appliance) having a hollow cavity therein ([0008]; dental appliance may include cavities) and a plurality of openings formed therein ([0008]; apertures). Dorfinger further teaches the sizes and locations of the apertures can be determined based on viscosity/flowability of the resin, resulting structural stiffness changes, centrifugal force and/or centrifugation time, available surface area of the concave surfaces, and/or any other parameters or combinations thereof ([0162]). For example, it may be determined that there are ranges of acceptable centrifugal forces and centrifugation times for draining the residual resin in the formed dental appliance, such that with these parameters sizes and locations of the apertures may be determined ([0162]).
However, none of the references of the record nor any other prior art either alone or in combination, Inter Alia, teach or fairly suggest the height of each residual resin drain opening is greater than the height of said hollow cavity in a region of said hollow cavity adjacent each said residual resin drain opening. This contributes to the advantage of allowing sufficient residual resin to be removed from the hollow molds to provide good accuracy of thermoformed dental appliances thereon as per paragraph [0129] of the instant specification. Therefore, claim 32 is deemed allowable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754