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 Arguments/Amendments
In light of Applicant’s amendments to specify that the imaging device comprises an image sensor, the claims are no longer interpreted under 112f.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant appears to argue:
1) The mirrors, irises, and option porthole, shutter, and lens tube impart no aspect ratio to the beam -- they merely route and align it.
In response, the examiner notes that the claim does require that the beam shaping group change the aspect ratio, only that it has an aspect ratio when it exits the beam shaping group. Lenses and mirrors shape the beam in terms of convergence and divergence as explained in paragraph 69 of Vacca. Irises, portholes, and shutters are optical elements with apertures that shape the beam and allow light through the aperture. This means that this is not a light beam of infinite extension. Therefore, it inherently has an aspect ratio (since the ratio of the beam width in one direction divided by the ration in the other direction results in a finite number)
2) The prior art combination doesn't teach the new limitation of a substantially uniform irradiance across the elongated cross section" because Vacca teaches a Gaussian intensity profile focused asymmetrically so that the horizontal beam waist is in the range of 40 to about 160 and the vertical beam waist is in the range of about 10-40. Therefore, these are tightly focused Gaussian spots instead of elongated beam of uniform illumination.
In response, the examiner notes that Vacca teaches another intensity distribution besides Gaussian, such as uniform illumination distribution like the flat-top or top-hat profiles, which Vacca teaches provides the benefit of mitigating variability in measurements (paragraphs 82 and 93). Regarding "elongated," it is long compared to its width (paragraph 93), which matches the use of the term in the specification (e.g. "thin"; Oxford English Dictionary, “elongated (adj.),” July 2023, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/5279920168.). Regarding the specific sizes mentioned in Applicant's argument, Vacca teaches chooses the dimensions "according to the specific application of interest, the nature of the particles to be interrogated, the wavelength of laser light being used, the internal cross-sectional dimensions of the flowcell, and other considerations." (paragraph 93).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 12, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vacca (US 20230266227 A1) in view of Misener (US 20190302391 A1) and Heng (US 20100238442 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vacca teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a flow cell (940/1040) to receive a sample (paragraphs 93, 63, 85, 89, and 95);
a system, comprising:
and
a system including:
a light source assembly to form a substantially collimated beam (paragraph 89);
an optical assembly including a beam shaping group (“mirrors and irises and optionally passes through a porthole, an openable shutter, and lens tubes” in Vacca, paragraph 92) and an asymmetric beam expander group (“asymmetric expansion”) that includes one or more asymmetric elements or anamorphic elements disposed along an optical axis (paragraph 95), the optical assembly to receive the substantially collimated beam from the light source assembly (paragraph 95), the beam shaping group to transform the substantially collimated beam into a first shaped beam (Lenses and mirrors shape the beam in terms of convergence and divergence as explained in paragraph 69; Irises, portholes, and shutters are optical elements that shape a beam through the geometry of their apertures and the timing of their opening in the case of a shutter) having a first aspect ratio (since the light beam has a finite extension in each direction as determined by the sizes of the apertures of the optical elements, it has a definable and inherent aspect ratio), and the asymmetric beam expander group to asymmetrically or anamorphically expand the first shaped beam having the first aspect ratio into a shaped sampling beam having an elongated cross section (“asymmetric expansion” in paragraph 95; also, as explained in paragraph 95, the output waists are similar to the waists described previously in paragraph 93, which are elongated as one dimension is longer than the other) in a far field at or near a focal plane of the optical assembly to optically probe the sample in the flow cell (paragraph 95 and figures 9A and 10); the shaped sampling beam having a second aspect ratio greater than the first aspect ratio (since it’s been asymmetrically elongated to have the waists described in paragraph 93, the aspect ratio is now greater) and; and, the shaped sampling be;
a beam shaping group (“mirrors and irises and optionally passes through a porthole, an openable shutter, and lens tubes” in Vacca, paragraph 92) having one or more optical elements disposed along the optical axis to receive the substantially collimated beam from the collimator (Fei, 13), and transform the substantially collimated beam into a first shaped beam having a first aspect ratio;
the asymmetric beam expander group (Vacca, paragraph 95) is to asymmetrically or anamorphically expand the first shaped beam having the first aspect ratio to form a second shaped beam having a second different aspect ratio (Vacca: paragraph 95; for context, see paragraph 93 / Heng: 403 and 405 and paragraphs 29 and 56); and
a device (980, 990) to obtain data associated with the sample in response to the optical probing of the sample with the shaped sampling beam (paragraphs 85 and 95).
The above embodiment of Vacca suggests doesn’t explicitly teach a substantially uniform irradiance across the elongated cross section (suggested because Vacca teaches two types of beam profiles in paragraph 93, which suggests each one including the flat-top beam, which has substantially uniform irradiance; for elongated cross section, see the citations above). Additionally, Vacca teaches that having a substantially uniform irradiance provides the benefit of mitigating undesired variability in measurements (paragraphs 82 and 93). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination to have a substantially uniform irradiance across the elongated cross section in order to mitigate undesired variability in measurements.
Vacca doesn’t explicitly teach a flow cell receptacle to receive the flow cell; the measurement device is an imaging device and the data is image data.
Like Vacca (and like the instant application), Misener is directed to an apparatus comprising a flow cell and teaches a flow cell receptacle to receive the flow cell provides the benefit of ensuring the flow cell is maintained at the desired position in relation to the rest of the apparatus (lines 1-4 of paragraph 73).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination by adding a flow cell receptacle to receive the flow cell in order to ensure the flow cell is maintained at the desired position in relation to the rest of the apparatus, and therefore limit errors due to misalignment or unintended movement.
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach the measurement device is an imaging device and the data is image data.
Like Vacca (and like the instant application), Heng is directed to an apparatus comprising and flow cell and measuring fluorescence and teaches the measurement device is an imaging device including an image sensor (801; abstract; figure 8; paragraphs 29 and 46-47) and the data is image data (abstract; figure 8; paragraphs 29, 46-47). Additionally, Heng teaches this provides the benefit of performing fluorescence imaging that takes better advantage of the available illumination (abstract and paragraphs 43 and 46-47).
PNG
media_image1.png
374
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
384
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the measurement device is an imaging device including an image sensor and the data is image data in order to performing fluorescence imaging, while taking great advantage of the available illumination.
Regarding claim 4, Vacca teaches the asymmetric beam expander group is to provide a first magnification in a first axis, and a second different magnification in a second different axis, wherein the first magnification is at least twice the second magnification (as explained in paragraph 95, the embodiment with the beam expander achieves the same purpose as the other embodiments, and therefore, it also has a magnification that is 4 times as much as the magnification in the different axis, as explained in paragraphs 93 and 95).
Regarding claim 6, in the above combination the optical assembly comprises: the asymmetric beam expander group to asymmetrically or anamorphically expand the substantially collimated beam having a first aspect ratio to form a shaped beam having a second different aspect ratio (Vacca: paragraph 95; for context, see paragraph 93 / Heng: 403 and 405 and paragraphs 29 and 56); and an objective group (Vacca: single spherical lens in paragraph 95) disposed along the optical axis to receive the shaped beam from the asymmetric beam expander group, and transform the shaped beam into the shaped sampling beam at or near the focal plane of the optical assembly (Vacca: paragraph 95 / Heng: 403 and 405 and paragraphs 29 and 56).
Regarding claim 12, in the above combination the imaging device includes a time domain integration (TDI) image sensor having an aspect ratio corresponding to an aspect ratio of the sampling beam (Heng, paragraphs 46-47 and 50).
Regarding claim 25, Vacca teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a system, comprising:
a flow cell (940/1040) that receives a sample (paragraphs 93, 63, 85, 89, and 95); and
an system including:
a light source assembly to form a substantially collimated beam (paragraph 89);
an optical assembly including an asymmetric beam expander group that includes one or more asymmetric elements or anamorphic elements disposed along an optical axis, the optical assembly to receive the substantially collimated beam from the light source assembly, and transform the substantially collimated beam into a shaped sampling beam having an elongated cross section (“asymmetric expansion”) in a far field at or near a focal plane of the optical assembly to optically probe the sample in the flow cell (paragraph 95 and figures 9A and 10);
an optical assembly including a beam shaping group (“mirrors and irises and optionally passes through a porthole, an openable shutter, and lens tubes” in Vacca, paragraph 92) and an asymmetric beam expander group (“asymmetric expansion”) that includes one or more asymmetric elements or anamorphic elements disposed along an optical axis (paragraph 95), the optical assembly to receive the substantially collimated beam from the light source assembly (paragraph 95), the beam shaping group to transform the substantially collimated beam into a first shaped beam (Lenses and mirrors shape the beam in terms of convergence and divergence as explained in paragraph 69; Irises, portholes, and shutters are optical elements that shape a beam through the geometry of their apertures and the timing of their opening in the case of a shutter) having a first aspect ratio (since the light beam has a finite extension in each direction as determined by the sizes of the apertures of the optical elements, it has a definable and inherent aspect ratio), and the asymmetric beam expander group to asymmetrically or anamorphically expand the first shaped beam having the first aspect ratio into a shaped sampling beam having an elongated cross section (“asymmetric expansion” in paragraph 95; also, as explained in paragraph 95, the output waists are similar to the waists described previously in paragraph 93, which are elongated as one dimension is longer than the other) in a far field at or near a focal plane of the optical assembly to optically probe the sample in the flow cell (paragraph 95 and figures 9A and 10); the shaped sampling beam having a second aspect ratio greater than the first aspect ratio (since it’s been asymmetrically elongated to have the waists described in paragraph 93, the aspect ratio is now greater);
and
a device (980, 990) to obtain data associated with the sample in response to the optical probing of the sample with the sampling beam (paragraphs 85 and 95).
The above embodiment of Vacca suggests doesn’t explicitly teach a substantially uniform irradiance across the elongated cross section (suggested because Vacca teaches two types of beam profiles in paragraph 93, which suggests each one including the flat-top beam, which has substantially uniform irradiance; for elongated cross section, see the citations above). Additionally, Vacca teaches that having a substantially uniform irradiance provides the benefit of mitigating undesired variability in measurements (paragraphs 82 and 93). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination to have a substantially uniform irradiance across the elongated cross section in order to mitigate undesired variability in measurements.
Vacca doesn’t explicitly teach a flow cell receptacle to receive the flow cell; the measurement device is an imaging device and the data is image data.
Like Vacca (and like the instant application), Misener is directed to an apparatus comprising a flow cell and teaches a flow cell receptacle to receive the flow cell provides the benefit of ensuring the flow cell is maintained at the desired position in relation to the rest of the apparatus (lines 1-4 of paragraph 73).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination by adding a flow cell receptacle to receive the flow cell in order to ensure the flow cell is maintained at the desired position in relation to the rest of the apparatus, and therefore limit errors due to misalignment or unintended movement.
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach the measurement device is an imaging device and the data is image data.
Like Vacca (and like the instant application), Heng is directed to an apparatus comprising and flow cell and measuring fluorescence and teaches the measurement device is an imaging device including an image sensor (801; abstract; figure 8; paragraphs 29 and 46-47) and the data is image data (abstract; figure 8; paragraphs 29, 46-47). Additionally, Heng teaches this provides the benefit of performing fluorescence imaging that takes better advantage of the available illumination (abstract and paragraphs 43 and 46-47).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the measurement device is an imaging device including an image sensor and the data is image data in order to performing fluorescence imaging, while taking great advantage of the available illumination.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaca, MIsener, and Heng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiu (US 20160146823 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Vacca teaches the substantially collimated beam has a first aspect ratio and the shaped sampling beam has a second aspect ratio, wherein the first aspect ratio of the substantially collimated beam is at most 4:1 (paragraph 95, since the alternative embodiment, not relied upon for this rejection, is described as having a greater aspect ratio of 4:1, this implies that in the embodiment relied upon by the examiner, the collimated light beam that is emitted by the laser is less than 4:1), and the second aspect ratio of the shaped sampling beam is at least 8:1.
Vacca doesn’t explicitly teach the second aspect ratio is at least 8:1.
Like Vacca (and like the instant application), Chiu is also directed to an apparatus comprising flow cells and fluorescence measurements and teaches a second aspect ratio is at least 8:1 (paragraph 167).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the second aspect ratio is at least 8:1 in order to optimize the aspect ratio for the particular sample and detectors.
Claims 7-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaca, MIsener, and Heng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fei (US 20210349027 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Vacca teaches the light source assembly includes: a beam source (910 and lasers in text) to provide input radiation, and a to substantially collimate the input radiation to form the substantially collimated beam having a first aspect ratio (paragraphs 88-89).
Vacca doesn’t explicitly teach a collimator is used to form the collimated beam.
Like Vacca (and like the instant application), Fei is an optical measuring apparatus for measuring fluid samples and fluorescence measurements and teaches a collimator (13) is used to form the collimated beam (paragraph 66).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the light source assembly includes a collimator that is used to form the collimated beam in order to allow further flexibility with respect to the positioning of the light source through the use of an optical fiber, while still emitting collimated light.
Regarding claim 8, in the above combination the collimator includes a waveguide having the first aspect ratio, wherein the waveguide comprises at least one of a rectangular optical fiber, or a light pipe (the optical fiber, 12, of Fei is a light pipe) having the first aspect ratio, and wherein the collimator disposed to collimate an output of the optical fiber.
The above combination suggests but doesn’t explicitly teach includes at least one of a spherical lens or an aspherical lens (suggested because the text describes it as a collimator in paragraph 34 of Fei, and figure 2 of Fei illustrates the light beam going through the collimator, which suggests the collimator is a lens as opposed to a mirror; furthermore, a collimating lens would suggest to one of ordinary skill that it is either spherical or aspherical). Additionally, Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art of optical measuring and testing for a collimator to include at least one of a spherical lens or an aspherical lens. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the collimator of the above combination include at least one of a spherical lens or an aspherical lens in order to provide the collimation in a compact device using a lens that fits well to the end of the optical fiber.
PNG
media_image3.png
458
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11¸in the above combination the optical assembly comprises:
an objective group (Vacca: single spherical lens in paragraph 95) disposed along the optical axis to receive the second shaped beam from the asymmetric beam expander group, and transform the second shaped beam into the shaped sampling beam at or near the focal plane of the optical assembly (Vacca: paragraph 95 / Heng: 403 and 405 and paragraphs 29 and 56).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vacca, MIsener, and Heng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 20220113241 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Vacca teaches the asymmetric beam expander group includes one or more optical elements disposed along the optical axis with different powers and oriented on different axes (paragraph 95).
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach the optical elements are crossed cylindrical lenses includes two cylindrical lenses.
However, Vacca teaches combining an asymmetric beam expander group with a spherical lens to form an asymmetrically focused beam (paragraph 95). Like Vacca (and like the instant application), Chen is directed to an apparatus comprising a flow cell and teaches that when combining an asymmetric beam expander group with a spherical lens to form an asymmetrically focused beam it is common for the optical element to be a cylindrical lens pair (paragraph 321; this would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art crossed cylindrical lenses including two cylindrical lenses, especially in light of the prior art teaching that crossed cylindrical lenses provide independent control over the degree of elongation about two different axes, as explained in Vacca’s discussion of elements 1030a and 1030b and paragraph 93, as well as the additional prior art below).
PNG
media_image4.png
442
522
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the optical elements are crossed cylindrical lenses includes two cylindrical lenses because this is common in the art and in order to ensure independent control over the magnification along each axis.
Additional Prior Art
US 20190187044 A1 reads, “[0221] In one embodiment, the beam shaping optics 181 include two perpendicular cylindrical lenses to alter the beam shape 148 into an ellipse perpendicular to the direction of sample fluid 120 flow, and along the direction of sample fluid 120 flow, when focused at the center thereof. This elliptical beam 148 spot serves to excite the objects 160 passing through the channel 164 of the microfluidic chip 100, and provides maximum uniform illumination at a center area of the beam 148 spot, to compensate for minor fluctuations in the flow of objects 160 through the channel 164. Further, in one embodiment, the ellipse of the beam shape having a wider dimension perpendicular to the sample fluid 120 flow, helps to reduce variation in the fluorescence signal coming from the objects 160 (i.e., sperm cells) that are not perfectly centered within the sample fluid 120 flow stream. The narrow dimension keeps the beam 148 at a high enough intensity to adequately excite the fluorescent dye for interrogation of the objects 160 (i.e., sperm cells). While an elliptical beam 148 spot is preferred, in other embodiments of the present invention, a different shaped beam may be utilized.
PNG
media_image5.png
692
462
media_image5.png
Greyscale
JP 6856635 B2 reads, “The beam shaping system 300 has two aspherical cylindrical lenses 302, 304 arranged so as to be orthogonal to each other. The first aspherical cylindrical lens 302 is a lens for shaping the incident beam A along the X axis, and the second aspherical cylindrical lens 304 is a lens for shaping the incident beam A along the Y axis. is there. The two intersecting aspheric cylindrical lenses are configured to provide a rectangular laser beam B with a flat top profile along the X axis.”
US 20160084814 A1 reads, [0145] In one embodiment, flow cytometric measurements are derived from a red diode laser (SPMT, 635 nm, 12 mW, Power Technologies, Inc.) focused to a horizontally elongated elliptical beam spot by cylindrical lenses (horizontal=approximately 80 mm focal length, located approximately 100 mm from the flow cell; vertical=approximately 40 mm focal length, at approximately 40 mm). Each sample particle passing through the laser beam scatters the laser light, and chlorophyll-containing cells emit red (680 nm) fluorescence. One of these signals, usually chlorophyll fluorescence, is chosen to trigger a xenon flash lamp (Hamamatsu L4633) when the signal exceeds a preset threshold. The resulting approximately 1 μs flashes of light are used to provide Kohler illumination of the flow cell. The green component of the light, isolated by an approximately 530 nm bandpass filter, is focused into a randomized fiber optic bundle (approximately 50 μm fibers, approximately 6.35 mm diameter; Stocker-Yale, Inc.). At the fiber optic bundle exit, the light is collected by a lens, passed through a field iris, and focused onto a condenser iris, which is located approximately at the back focal plane of a 10×objective lens (Zeiss CP-Achromat, numerical aperture [N.A.] 0.25), which is in turn focused on the flow cell. A second 10× objective (Zeiss Epiplan, N.A. 0.2) collects the light from both the flash lamp illumination (green) and the laser (red, 635 nm scattered light and 680 nm chlorophyll fluorescence). The green and red wavelengths are separated by a dichroic mirror (630 nm short pass). The green light continues to a monochrome CCD camera (UniqVision UP-1800DS-CL, 1380×1034 pixels). The red light is reflected to a second dichroic mirror (635 LP), which direct the scattered laser light and fluorescence to separate photomultiplier (PMT) modules (Hamamatsu HC120-05 modified for current-to-voltage conversion with time constant=800 kHz; the PMT for laser scattering also incorporates DC restoration circuitry).
The aluminum plate is used to support the flow cell assembly. (paragraph 142)
[0231] The optical system of the IFCB-Sorter uses an additional optical system involved in sorting. The optical system involved in sorting is a copy of that in the IFCB. A 635 nm diode laser (SPMT, 635 nm, 12 mW, Power Technologies, Inc.) is focused on the capillary tube of the sorting system by crossed cylindrical lenses.
PNG
media_image6.png
659
1054
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Besides what’s noted above, Fei (US 20210349027 A1) also discloses a sample cell (311, 312) and a sample cell receptacle (313)
PNG
media_image7.png
730
598
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 RUFUS L PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-7021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 2 -10 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/RUFUS L PHILLIPS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights