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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5:
at line 3, “the longitudinal direction” should be amended to read “a longitudinal direction”
at line 6, “the transverse direction” should be amended to read “a transverse direction”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) is/are:
• “buffer unit” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “buffer”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “buffer” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
• “detection unit” as recited in at least claims 1 and 4 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “detection”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “detection” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
• “loading unit” as recited in at least claim 8 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “loading”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “loading” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
• “removal device” as recited in at least claim 9 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “removal”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “removal” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the device)
• “calibre receiving units” as recited in at least claim 10 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “calibre receiving”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “calibre receiving” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
• “drive unit” as recited in at least claim 10 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “drive”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “drive” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
• “cooling unit” as recited in at least claim 11 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “cooling”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “cooling” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US 20220032487) as evidenced by Weber (US 20120042757).
Regarding claim 1, Bauer discloses a slicing machine (slicing apparatus 15; see fig. 1A) for slicing a predetermined number of product calibres into slices and for producing portions from the slices (products 13 are cut into slices 25 and collected to form portions 107; see paragraph [0098]), the slicing machine comprising: a cutting unit with a knife for separating the slices from the predetermined number of product calibres (located within cutting region 23 is blade 83, which cuts products 13 into slices 25; see paragraph [0097] and fig. 1A), a feeding unit with a feed conveyor for feeding a plurality of product calibres to the cutting unit along a feed direction (feeding unit 21 comprises conveying means 95 for transporting products 13 in a feeding direction F towards cutting region 23; see paragraph [0097] and fig. 1A), a buffer unit arranged at or upstream of the feeding unit and configured to receive the plurality of product calibres (loading apparatus 11 is arranged upstream of feeding unit 21 and receives a plurality of products 13 from either manual loading by an operator or automatic loading by a supply wagon; see paragraphs [0104, 110] and figs. 1A), a weight detection unit configured to detect a product calibre weight of each of the plurality of product calibres received in the buffer unit (loading apparatus 11 may comprise a weighing device to determine the weight of products 13; see paragraph [0110]), and a controller operatively connected to the buffer unit and the weight detection unit (controller 81 comprises display 169 to provide information to an operator, including number and/or weight of products 13 to be sliced (wherein the weighing device is part of loading apparatus 11); see paragraphs [0110, 0134]), wherein, in operation, the controller obtains from the weight detection unit the product calibre weight of each of the plurality of product calibres received in the buffer unit (controller 81 receives information regarding weight of products 13 (wherein the weighing device is part of loading apparatus 11); see paragraphs [0110, 0134]), limits the product calibre weight of each of the predetermined number of product calibres to at most a predetermined deviation from the product calibre weight of each other of the predetermined number of product calibres (since controller 81 controls transfer of products 13 to feeding device 21, provides information regarding weight of products 13 while they are in loading apparatus 11, and is configurable (either by preselected program or manual input from an operator), it is interpreted that controller 81 is capable of detecting and supplying only products 13 that fall within an acceptable predetermined deviation of weight; see paragraphs [0122, 0134]), controlling the buffer unit to feed the predetermined number of product calibres from the plurality of product calibres to the feeding unit sequentially or simultaneously (since controller 81 controls transfer of products 13 to feeding device 21 and provides information to an operator including number of products 13 to be sliced to complete a lot, controller 81 is interpreted to be capable of stopping supply to feeding unit 21 (either by a preselected program or manual input from an operator) once this number has been reached; see paragraphs [0122, 0134]), and minimizes a deviation of the product calibre weight of each of the predetermined number of product calibres from the product calibre weight of each other of the predetermined number of product calibres when the plurality of the product calibres includes more than the predetermined number of product calibres having product calibre weights with at most the predetermined deviation from each other (since controller 81 controls transfer of products 13 to feeding device 21, provides information regarding weight of products 13 while they are in loading apparatus 11, and is configurable (either by preselected program or manual input from an operator), it is interpreted that controller 81 is capable of detecting and supplying only products 13 that fall within an acceptable predetermined deviation of weight; see paragraphs [0122, 0134]), controlling the buffer unit to feed the predetermined number of product calibres to the feeding unit sequentially or simultaneously (since controller 81 controls transfer of products 13 to feeding device 21 and provides information to an operator including number of products 13 to be sliced to complete a lot, controller 81 is interpreted to be capable of stopping supply to feeding unit 21 (either by a preselected program or manual input from an operator) once this number has been reached; see paragraphs [0122, 0134]).
Examiner notes that as presently interpreted, controller 81 of Bauer is understood to control the entirety of slicing apparatus 15. Bauer discloses that controller 81 is configured to control feeding unit 21 and the slicing process in general, and that controller 81 may be a common controller that allows for components of slicing apparatus 15 to be synchronized for an optimized slicing process (see paragraph [0134]). Further, controller 81 may be configured to adjust the slicing process depending on a product weight (see paragraph [0040]). Therefore, as best understood, controller 81 is capable of controlling the transfer of products 13 from the buffering unit (loading apparatus 11) to the feeding unit (feeding unit 21) according to product weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the controller transfer calibres to the feeding unit dependent on the detected weight of the calibre, as evidenced by Weber. Bauer discloses a system for transferring products to a slicer depending on a detected variable, which may include weight of the product. Weber teaches that when slicing products simultaneously, the weight profile of each product should be the same, otherwise individual feed speed is required to complete slicing of all products at the same time (see paragraph [0063]). In other words, weights between products should remain the same, otherwise a more complex system is required to ensure portions are completed simultaneously. Further, it is beneficial to complete slicing simultaneously so that new products can be supplied at the same time (see paragraph [0063]). Therefore, in order to simplify the system, it would be obvious to limit and minimize deviation between product weights.
Regarding claim 2, Bauer discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Bauer does not explicitly disclose wherein: the predetermined deviation of the product calibre weights of the predetermined number of product calibres is at most ± 4.5%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bauer to make the predetermined deviation of the product calibre weights of the predetermined number of product calibres at most ± 4.5% since it is known within the art, as evidenced by Weber, that deviation between product weights prevents the slicing operation from being completed at the same time for each product. This means that the completed tracks are not producing new slices while the incomplete tracks continue cutting, therefore overall efficiency is reduced. Further, it appears Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed range, simply indicating that the deviation “can preferably be at most approximately ±4.5%” (see instant specification paragraph [0033]). Therefore, such a modification would be obvious in order to reduce the deviation to a point that it does not affect the slicing process.
Regarding claim 4, Bauer discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Bauer further discloses wherein: the slicing machine further comprises a further detection unit operatively connected to the controller and configured to detect at least one further product parameter comprising a length and/or a volume and/or a shape of the product calibres (scanning device 163 is configured to analyze products 13 and transmit information regarding the contour and structure of products 13 to controller 81; see paragraph [0141]), wherein the controller is further configured to control the buffer unit as a function of the at least one further product parameter (controller 81 is capable of controlling transfer of products 13 from loading apparatus 11 to feeding device 21 based on data from the weighing device; see paragraphs [0110, 0134]).
Regarding claim 5, Bauer discloses the limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Bauer further discloses wherein: the slicing machine further comprises a cutting device operatively connected to the controller (feeding unit 21, which is controlled by controller 81, comprises trimming cutter 159; see paragraphs [0134, 0139] and fig. 8A) and configured to cut the product calibres in the longitudinal direction into a plurality of product calibre parts (the trimming cutter may be used to divide products in a longitudinal direction; see paragraph [0079]), wherein the cutting device comprises a cutting element (trimming cutter 159 comprises circular blade 161; see paragraphs [0139-0140]), wherein the controller is further configured to control the cutting device as a function of the at least one further product parameter detected by the further detection unit (controller 81 is configured to control feeding unit 21, therefore it is capable of controlling trimming cutter 159 to remove parts of products which are not suitable for further processing; see paragraphs [0139-0140]).
Bauer does not explicitly disclose at least two cutting elements that are adjustable in the transverse direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bauer to include at least two cutting elements since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). In the instant case, inclusion of an additional cutting element (circular blade 161) would allow for the product to be divided into three portions rather than two. Further, an additional blade would be able to remove additional unsuitable sections of the product (see paragraph [0139]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Bauer to make the cutting elements adjustable since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves routine skill in the art (see In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954)). In the instant case, making the cutting elements (circular blades 161) adjustable would allow the blades to more accurately remove unsuitable sections of the product. Therefore, in order to provide a way to remove the largest amount of the unsuitable portions as possible, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Bauer as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Bauer as modified further discloses wherein: the controller is further configured to control the cutting device as a function of at least one product parameter limit value comprising a minimum slice width of the slices and/or a maximum slice width of the slices (thickness of slices 25 may be set by controller 81, which is further configured to control feeding unit 21 (of which trimming cutter 159 is a part of); see paragraphs [0134, 0139]).
Regarding claim 7, Bauer discloses the limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Bauer does not explicitly disclose wherein: the weight detection unit or the further detection unit is arranged upstream of the buffer unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Bauer to make the weight detection unit or the further detection unit arranged upstream of the buffer unit since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). In the instant case, the weighing device can be integrated into the loading unit (upstream of the buffer unit) without changing the overall function of the device; that is, there appears to be no functional difference between weighing the product while on the buffer unit versus weighing the product on the while on the loading unit.
Regarding claim 9, Bauer discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Bauer further discloses at least one removal device (entraining device 52; see fig. 6) configured to remove a relevant product calibre from the buffer unit and to convey the relevant product calibre onto the feed conveyor of the feeding unit (entraining device 52 detects (via sensor 77) when product 13 has reached transferring height H. Entraining device 52 then moves product 13 in transferring direction T such that product 13 moves from loading apparatus 11 to conveying means 95 of feeding unit 21; see paragraphs [0097, 0108, 0129] and figs. 1A, 6), wherein the removal device is further configured to push the relevant product calibre onto the feed conveyor of the feeding unit in parallel with the feed direction (products 13 are deposited on conveying means 95 of feeding unit 21 and move in a feeding direction F towards cutting region 23; see paragraph [0097] and fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 10, Bauer discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Bauer further discloses wherein the buffer unit is designed as a compartment buffer unit (loading apparatus 11 comprises compartments 117; see paragraph [0128] and fig. 6), which comprises a plurality of calibre receiving units in the form of calibre compartments (a plurality of compartments 117 (formed by adjacent product support surfaces 27, run 113, and wall member 93) are supported by conveying means 19; see paragraph [0128] and fig. 6), wherein the plurality of calibre receiving units is displaceable in and/or against a height direction by a drive unit of the buffer unit (compartments 117 are vertically displaceable along conveying means 19 by action of driving means 43; see paragraphs [0117, 0132]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US 20220032487) as evidenced by Weber (US 20120042757), in view of Sauer (US 20040149541).
Regarding claim 8, Bauer discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Bauer does not explicitly disclose a loading unit arranged upstream of the buffer unit and configured to load the plurality of product calibres into the buffer unit through a supply opening of the buffer unit, wherein the loading unit is designed to be functionally unified with the weight detection unit and/or the further detection unit, and/or the weight detection unit is designed as a weighing and/or transport belt.
Sauer discloses a loading unit arranged upstream of the buffer unit (input device 12 is located upstream from carriers 09 of intermediate storage device 01; see fig. 1) and configured to load the plurality of product calibres into the buffer unit through a supply opening of the buffer unit (input device 12 transports objects 11 onto carriers 09 by action of pushers 14; see paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bauer in view of Sauer to include a loading unit in order to provide a means for automatically loading the buffer unit. Bauer discloses that products can be loaded onto the buffer unit (loading apparatus 11) manually by an operator or automatically by a supply wagon (see paragraphs [0109-0110]). Sauer provides a similar system to the supply wagon in the form of a belt conveyor device, which delivers objects onto the input device (see paragraph [0026]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the input device of Sauer is an alternative method for supplying a buffer unit and thus would be a simple substitution of loading elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Bauer to make the loading unit functionally unified with the weight detection unit and/or the further detection unit since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). In the instant case, the weighing device can be integrated into the loading unit without changing the overall function of the device; that is, there appears to be no functional difference between weighing the product while on the buffer unit versus weighing the product on the while on the loading unit.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US 20220032487) as evidenced by Weber (US 20120042757), in view of Burk (US 20160271822).
Regarding claim 11, Bauer discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Bauer does not explicitly disclose wherein: the buffer unit comprises a cooling unit configured to passively or actively cool the plurality of the product calibres accommodated therein.
Burk discloses wherein: the buffer unit comprises a cooling unit configured to passively or actively cool the plurality of the product calibres accommodated therein (food product 2 is passed through pre-cooling device 4 to chill food product 2 prior to slicing; see paragraphs [0010, 0060-0061] and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bauer in view of Burk to include a cooling unit. Burk discloses that cooling or freezing a food product prior to slicing results in higher cutting quality, which leads to standardization of cutting performance (see paragraph [0010]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that standardization of the cutting operation is desirable in order to reduce deviation of products, and therefore potential defects. Therefore, in order to provide a more standardized product for cutting, such a modification would be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
It is Examiner’s interpretation that Bauer discloses the limitations of claim 1 since it is disclosed that the controller is capable of controlling the transfer of products from the buffer unit (loading apparatus 11) to the feeding unit (feeding unit 21). Specifically, controller 81 receives data from a weighing device included in loading apparatus 11 (see paragraph [0110]). Controller 81 is also stated as being capable of controlling feeding unit 21, entraining device 52, and the slicing process in general (see paragraphs [0122, 0134]). As previously discussed, it is interpreted that the controller can be programmed (see paragraph [0134]) to perform this transfer operation according to a detected product parameter, in this case, weight of the product. However, Weber evidences the need to have products be of a similar weight, i.e., to limit and minimize a deviation of the product weights. Weber teaches that if products being sliced simultaneously are of different weights, then each product must be fed individually (see paragraph [0063]). This requires a more complex system in which each track is capable of adjusting a feeding speed independently. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a less complex system (i.e., one which feeds products at the same rate) is preferable in order to simplify the slicing system as a whole. This allows the slicer to finish a cutting operation on each product at the same time, thereby reducing the amount of time required to load products (since products can be loaded simultaneously).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20180346168 to Bialy, drawn to a conveyor device for conveying food products.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights