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 . Claims 1-16 are pending in this application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 31 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 31 August 2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11 and 14-18 remain pending in this application. Claim(s) 7 and 12-13 have been cancelled. Claims 17 and 18 are new.
The amendment to the claims has overcome the claim objections set forth in the office action mailed 1 May 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) are:
“first sealing element” in claim 6, “second sealing element” in Claim 11 and “third sealing element” in Claim 14 all with corresponding structure in Paragraph 0037 of structures that prevent the leaking of water, i.e. bodies and seals.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinciaro (U.S. Patent No. 6,745,413), hereinafter Pinciaro in view of Lin (U.S. Patent No. 10,537,492), hereinafter Lin, and Castellote (U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2005/0055763), hereinafter Castellote.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Pinciaro discloses a spraying device (Figure 2), comprising:
a Venturi tube (the structures, 58a and 36, define a Venturi tube – See annotated figure below for clarification), two ends of the Venturi tube being provided with a first opening (the left end of the Venturi tube, as seen in the annotated figure below, includes the first opening) and a second opening (the right end of the Venturi tube, as seen in the annotated figure below, includes the second opening) respectively, a sidewall (the walls of the structures, 58a, and 36, make up the Venturi tube sidewalls) of the Venturi tube being provided with an air vent, 66, the Venturi tube having a throat portion (the portion of the structure, 58a, with the smallest cross-section is the throat of the Venturi tube – See annotated figure below for clarification) arranged between the first opening and the second opening (the throat is between the first and second openings- See annotated figure below for clarification), a tube diameter of the throat portion being less than an opening diameter of the first opening and less than an opening diameter of the second opening (the cross-section and thus the diameter of the throat is less than the diameter of the first and second openings- See annotated figure below for clarification);
wherein the first opening is used for communicating with a water supply (Intended use – It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex paste Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) – further conduit, 102, is described as a water conduit that is in communication with the first opening, thus the structure is capable of performing the claimed function), and the air vent is used for communicating with external atmosphere (Intended use – It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex paste Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) – further conduit, 74, is described as an air conduit that is in part of the air vent, thus the structure is capable of performing the claimed function);
a spraying main body, 20, 22 and 24, having an air inlet, (the top opening of the air vent, 66, is an air inlet); and
a spraying cover, 120 and 122, that is detachably connected to the spraying main body (Column 2, Lines 49-53 – the components of the assembly can be disassembled therefore the cover would be detachably connected to the main body).
Pinciaro does not disclose the air inlet further comprises an inlet valve, wherein the inlet valve: comprises a rubber material; is fixed to a mounting support; and is arranged at the air inlet to prevent outflow of water in the Venturi tube through the air inlet while still allowing outside air to enter the Venturi tube; and the spraying cover that is threadably connected to the spraying main body by an externally arranged and an internally arranged thread.
However, Lin teaches a spraying device (Figure 2) with an air vent, 14, with an inlet valve, 22, wherein the inlet valve: is fixed to a mounting support (Figure 2 – the inlet valve, 22, is located within/mounted to the hollow tubular structure of the mounting support, 38); and is arranged at the air inlet (Figure 2 – the check valve/inlet valve, 22, is located at the air vent, 14) to prevent outflow of water in the Venturi tube through the air inlet (Intended use – It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex paste Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) – Further, Column 5, Lines 34-43 and Column 6, Lines 29-50 describe the valve as a check valve that allows air flow through the valve but prevents the flow of water up the air vent, 14).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Pinciaro by making the air inlet further comprises an inlet valve, wherein the inlet valve: is fixed to a mounting support; and is arranged at the air inlet to prevent outflow of water in the Venturi tube through the air inlet while still allowing outside air to enter the Venturi tube, as taught by Lin, in order to prevent leaking of water out of the device (Lin – Column 6, Lines 29-32).
Lin further teaches a spraying cover, 40, that is threadably connected to a spraying main body, 32, by an externally arranged and an internally arranged thread (Figures 1 and 2 – the cover is show to be threadably connected to the main body by external threads on the body and internal threads on the cover).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Pinciaro in view of Lin replacing the detachable connection of Pinciaro such that the spraying cover that is threadably connected to the spraying main body by an externally arranged and an internally arranged thread, as taught by Lin, because it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element (a detachable connection of Pinciaro), for another (a threaded connection of Lin), to obtain predictable results providing a detachable connection between the spraying cover and the main body was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421; MPEP 2141 III B.
Pinciaro in view of Lin do not explicitly disclose the inlet valve comprises a rubber material.
However, Castellote teaches the use of a rubber material in a check valve with water (Paragraph 0031).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Pinciaro in view of Lin by making the inlet valve comprise a rubber material since it has been held that the selection of a known material (in the present case a rubber material) based on its suitability for its intended use (providing a material for use in a check/inlet valve) would have been an obvious extension of prior art teachings. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.07.
PNG
media_image1.png
542
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Pinciaro further discloses the air vent is arranged corresponding to the throat portion (the air vent is located at the throat of the Venturi tube).
Regarding Claim 3, Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Pinciaro further discloses the Venturi tube further comprises a shrink tube portion (the Venturi tube has a portion that gradually decreases in diameter and therefore is a shrink tube portion – See annotated figure below for clarification) communicated with the throat portion (the shrink tube portion is directly upstream of the throat and therefore in communication with the throat), an end of the shrink tube portion away from the throat portion being provided with the first opening (the left end of the shrink tube portion, as seen in the annotated figure below, includes the first opening – See annotated figure below for clarification).
PNG
media_image2.png
600
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Pinciaro further discloses the Venturi tube comprises:
a first tube section (the first tube section includes the shrink tube portion, throat and first opening make up the first tube section – See annotated figure below for clarification) comprising a shrink tube portion (the Venturi tube has a portion that gradually decreases in diameter and therefore is a shrink tube portion – See annotated figure below for clarification) and the throat portion (the portion of the structure, 58a, with the smallest cross-section is the throat of the Venturi tube – See annotated figure below for clarification) connected with each other (the shrink tube portion and the throat are connected to each other), an end of the shrink tube portion away from the throat portion being provided with the first opening (the left end of the shrink tube portion, as seen in the annotated figure below, includes the first opening – See annotated figure below for clarification), an inner diameter of the shrink tube portion gradually decreasing from the first opening to the throat portion (the shrink tube portion has a gradually decreasing diameter from the first opening to the throat); and
a second tube section, 22 and 36, an inner diameter of the second tube section being greater than that of the throat portion (the inner diameter of the second tube portion is greater than the throat portion), an end of the second tube section being provided with the second opening (the right end of the second tube portion includes the second opening), a sidewall, 22, of the second tube section being provided with the air vent (the air vent is provided through the sidewall, 22, of the second tube portion), an end of the second tube section away from the second opening being provided with a mounting port (the opening of the second tube portion where the band, 80, and groove, 110, are located is a mounting port);
wherein an end of the first tube section having the throat portion is inserted into and fixed to the second tube section (the end of the first tube section is inserted into and fixed within the second tube section, as seen in Figure 2), and the first tube section is communicated with the second tube section through the throat portion (flow from the first tube portion passes through the throat into the second tube portion, therefore they communicate with each other via the throat).
PNG
media_image3.png
588
536
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Pinciaro further discloses the spraying main body, 20, 22 and 24, having the air inlet, (the top opening of the air vent, 66, is an air inlet), a water inlet, 96, a spraying port, 38, and a mounting cavity (the cavity formed by the section, 22, is the mounting cavity), the air inlet, the water inlet, and the spraying port being all communicated with the mounting cavity (the mounting cavity is a common cavity through which the water and air enter and are provided to the spraying port);
wherein the Venturi tube is arranged in the mounting cavity (the Venturi tube is provided within the mounting cavity), the water inlet is communicated with the water supply, 102, and the first opening (the water inlet provides the water from the supply, 102, to the first opening), the air inlet is communicated with the external atmosphere and the air vent (the air inlet provides the external/atmospheric air to the vent), and the spraying port is communicated with the second opening (the flow from the second opening is provided to the spraying port).
Regarding Claim 6, Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Pinciaro further discloses a first sealing element, 28, arranged between a cavity wall, 22, of a mounting cavity and an outer wall of the Venturi tube (the first sealing element is located between the cavity wall, 22, and an outer wall of the Venturi tube).
Regarding Claim 8, Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote, as discussed so far, do not disclose a dust cover arranged at the air inlet to prevent entry of dust into the spraying main body through the air inlet.
However, Lin teaches a dust cover, 26, arranged at the air inlet (Figure 2 – the dust cover is at the air vent, 14) to prevent entry of dust into the spraying main body through the air inlet (Intended use – It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex paste Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) Further, Column 6, Lines 29-50 describe the cover prevents debris from falling into the air vent, 14).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote by including a dust cover arranged at the air inlet to prevent entry of dust into the spraying main body through the air inlet, as taught by Lin, in order to prevent debris from clogging the air way (Lin – Column 6, Lines 32-34).
Regarding Claim 9, Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote disclose the inlet valve and the mounting support (See rejection for Claim 1 above).
Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote, as discussed so far, the mounting support being of a hollow tubular structure, an end of the hollow tubular structure being communicated with the air vent, the inlet valve being arranged in the hollow tubular structure to prevent outflow of water in the Venturi tube through the air inlet.
However, Lin teaches the mounting support, 39, being of a hollow tubular structure (Figure 2 – the mounting support, 39, is a tubular housing), an end of the hollow tubular structure being communicated with the air vent (Figure 2 – the bottom end of the tubular structure is connected to an in communication with the air vent, 14), the inlet valve being arranged in the hollow tubular structure (Figure 2 – the inlet valve, 22, is located within the hollow tubular structure) to prevent outflow of water in the Venturi tube through the air inlet (Intended use – It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex paste Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) – Further, Column 6, Lines 29-50 describe the valve prevents the flow of water up the air vent, 14).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote by making the mounting support being of a hollow tubular structure, an end of the hollow tubular structure being communicated with the air vent, the inlet valve being arranged in the hollow tubular structure to prevent outflow of water in the Venturi tube through the air inlet, as taught by Lin, for the same reasons as discussed above for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote, as discussed so far, do not disclose a dust cover arranged at an end of the hollow tubular structure away from the air vent.
However, Lin further teaches a dust cover, 26, arranged at the air inlet (Figure 2 – the dust cover is at the air vent, 14) arranged at an end of the hollow tubular structure away from the air vent (Figure 2 – the dust cover, 26, is provided at the opposite end of the tubular structure, 39, from the air vent, 14).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote by including a dust cover arranged at an end of the hollow tubular structure away from the air vent, as taught by Lin, in order to prevent debris from clogging the air way (Lin – Column 6, Lines 32-34).
Regarding Claim 11, Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Pinciaro further discloses a second sealing element, 26, arranged between air vent, 66, and the Venturi tube (the second sealing element, 26, is located radially between the structure containing air vent and the Venturi tube).
Thus the combination of Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote would result in the second sealing element arranged between the mounting support and the Venturi tube since the mounting support would be at the opposite end of the air vent from the sealing element and the Venturi tube.
Regarding Claim 14, Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Pinciaro further discloses a third sealing element, 124, arranged between the spraying cover and the spraying main body (Figure 2 – Column 5, Lines 51-62 - the sealing element, 124, is arranged radially between the cover, 122, and the main body, 20, at the right end).
Regarding Claim 16, Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Pinciaro further discloses a pool (Column 1, Lines 10-14 – the sprayer is used with a pool therefore a pool is part of the system), comprising a pool body, 142, and the spraying device according claim 1 (See rejection for claim 1 above), the spraying device being configured to spray water mist or an air-water mixture into the pool (Intended use – It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex paste Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) – Further the spraying device is provided with water and air (Abstract) that combine in a common chamber before being sprayed and thus is capable of performing the action of spraying an air-water mixture into the pool).
Claim(s) 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Simonelli (U.S. Patent No. 4,281,422), hereinafter Simonelli.
Regarding Claim 15, Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote do not disclose a spraying lid configured to detachably cover the spraying cover.
However, Simonelli teaches a spraying device (Figures 1 and 2) with a spraying cover, 14 and 18, and a spraying lid, 19, configured to detachably cover the spraying cover (Figures 1 and 2 - the lid, 19, is configured to detachably cover the spraying cover as shown in Figures 1 and 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Pinciaro in view of Lin and Castellote to include a spraying lid configured to detachably cover the spraying cover, as taught by Simonelli, in order to provide allow for the system to be winterized during the winter (Simonelli – Column 2, Lines 3-10).
Regarding Claim 17, Pinciaro in view of Lin, Castellote and Simonelli disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Simonelli further discloses the spraying lid is threadably connected to the spraying cover (Figures 1 and 2 – the lid is attached to the cover via threads).
Thus the combination of Pinciaro in view of Lin, Castellote and Simonelli would result in the limitations of Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 18, Pinciaro in view of Lin, Castellote and Simonelli disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Pinciaro in view of Lin, Castellote and Simonelli, as discussed so far, do not disclose the spraying lid is connected to the spraying cover through a fastener connection.
However, Simonelli further teaches the spraying lid is connected to the spraying cover through a fastener connection (Figures 1 and 2 – the lid is attached to the cover via a threaded plug, 15, which is a fastener connection).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Pinciaro in view of Lin, Castellote and Simonelli such that the spraying lid is connected to the spraying cover through a fastener connection, as taught by Simonelli, for the same reasons as discussed above for Claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments against the §112(f) interpretation of the limitation “sealing element” it is first respectfully pointed out that the interpretation under §112(f) is not a rejection but rather a way of interpreting the structure of the claim limitation. In this case the term “element” is a generic placeholder, as discussed in MPEP 2181 I. A., which is modified by the function sealing. The claims do not include any additional structure to modify the generic placeholder that would refute the §112(f) interpretation. Applicant further argues that the term “sealing element” should be interpreted the same as broad class of structures, for example “filters,” “brakes,”, etc. However, it is respectfully pointed out that the term filter would be invoke §112(f) but the term “filtering element” could invoke §112(f) if no further structure was claimed. In the present case the term “seal” would be in line with Applicant’s argument but the claim uses “sealing element” which includes a generic placeholder and thus a different interpretation. Therefore as laid out in MPEP 2181 I. A. the interpretation of the limitation under §112(f) must be used. Thus under the §112(f) interpretation corresponding structure found in Paragraph 0037 is used to interpret the limitation. Thus the interpretation of sealing element under §112(f) is proper.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barnes (U.S. Patent No. 4,951,326) and Stevens (U.S. Patent No. 4,368,550) show spraying systems with spraying lids.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4813. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4pm EST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571)272-7118. 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.
/KYLE ROBERT THOMAS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights