DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/19/2025 has been entered.
Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Non-Final Office Action is in Reply to the amendment/request for continued examination (hereinafter “Response”) dated 10/06/2025. Claim(s) 21-22, 24-29, and 32-42 are presently pending. Claim(s) 21, 24-25, 29, and 32-42 is/are amended. Claim(s) 23 and 30-31 is/have been cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim(s) 21-22, 24, 27-29, 32, and 35-36 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0014985A1) in view of Sippel (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0101882 A1), of claim(s) 25-26 and 33-34 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain as modified by Sippel and in further view of Stahl (U.S. Pat. No. 5,927,942), of claim(s) 21-22, 27-29, 32, 35-37, and 41-42 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain in view of Boeck (EP1462616B1), and of claim(s) 25-26 and 33-34 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain as modified by Boeck and in further view of Stahl is/are withdrawn in light of the submitted amendment to the claims and in light of applicant(s) arguments as given in the present Response, which are found to be persuasive. However, a new grounds of rejection is presented regarding these claims in view of newly discovered reference Lee (CA 2554121 A1), with evidence provided by Yamazaki (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0281526 A1), and of other supporting references, as detailed below. Such new grounds have also been necessitated by applicant(s) amendments, which incorporate newly claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-22, 24, 28-29, 32, 36, 38, and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (CA 2554121 A1), with evidence provided by Yamazaki (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0281526 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Lee discloses a tip shoe (shroud segment 32) for forming a tip shroud (shroud assembly 33) of a turbine (high pressure turbine 10, see Fig. 1 and pg. 3, ln 15 – pg. 4, ln 12) having a longitudinal axis (C) and a radial axis that is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1), the tip shoe comprising: a body (arcuate base 46) with an upstream end and a downstream end, relative to a longitudinal direction parallel to the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1-5 and pg. 4, ln 21 - pg. 5, ln 2, wherein the upstream end of the body corresponds to forward shroud hanger hook 42, and the downstream end of the body extends beyond aft shroud hanger hook 44), the body including: a first engagement portion (forward rail 48) protruding in a first radial direction parallel to the radial axis and configured to engage with a support ring (shroud hanger 34) of the turbine (via forward shroud hanger hook 42; see Fig. 2 and 5, and pg. 4, ln 21 - pg. 5, ln 2), and a second engagement portion (aft rail 50) protruding in a second radial direction parallel to the radial axis and configured to engage with the support ring (shroud hanger 34) of the turbine (via aft shroud hanger hook 44; see Fig. 2 and 5, and pg. 4, ln 21 - pg. 5, ln 2); and a puller hook (ridge-and-trough structure formed on the downstream end of arcuate base 46 – see annotated Fig. 2 below) protruding from the downstream end in a third radial direction (see Fig. 1-2 and 5, wherein it is clear that the ridge portion of the puller hook protrudes from the downstream end of the arcuate base 46 in the radial direction), extending in parallel with the first engagement portion and the second engagement portion (see Fig. 1-2 and 5), and spaced apart from a downstream side of the second engagement portion to define a void between an upstream side of the puller hook and the downstream side of the second engagement portion (see annotated Fig. 2 below), the downstream end comprising a continuous surface extending from the second engagement portion to the puller hook (see annotated Fig. 2 below, wherein the ridge-and-trough puller hook structure is separated from the second engagement portion by a continuous upper surface of the aft portion of arcuate base 46, thereby forming a void between these two features), and the puller hook having an axially inner surface on the upstream side of the puller hook (see annotated Fig. 2 below) against which a force can be applied by a tool inserted into the void to push the tip shoe out of engagement with the support ring (see Fig. 2 and see Yamazaki, Fig. 4 and [0031-0035). Here, Yamazaki exemplifies that a tip shoe (4) mounted on a support ring (2) in the same manner as that of Lee may be disengaged from the support ring by use of a tool (20) which applies a force to the aft end (4e) of the tip shoe to pry the tip shoe radially out of engagement with the aft hook of the support ring (2b in Yamazaki), thereby allowing the tip shoe to be axially withdrawn from the forward hook of the support ring (hook forming slot 2a) and from the turbine assembly. The tip shoe of Lee is engaged with the forward and aft hooks of the support ring (shroud hanger) of Lee in the same manner as in Yamazaki, therefore it is clear that upon removal of C-clip 56, the tip shoe of Lee may also be disengaged and withdrawn from the support ring by insertion of a tool into the void of Lee, whereupon the tool may be used to radially pry the tip shoe from engagement with the aft hook by application of a downward/inward-oriented radial force to the trough portion of the puller hook and then may be used to axially push the tip shoe of Lee out of engagement with the support ring by application of a downstream-oriented axial force on the axially inner surface of the ridge portion of the puller hook (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
862
1485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Lee further discloses that the first radial direction of the first engagement portion is an outward direction from the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 2 and 5, and pg. 4, ln 21 - pg. 5, ln 9, wherein the forward rail 48 extends radially outwardly from the longitudinal axis along which the arcuate base 46 extends).
Regarding claim 24, Lee further discloses that the first radial direction of the first engagement portion and the second radial direction of the second engagement portion are an outward direction from the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 2 and 5, and pg. 4, ln 21 - pg. 5, ln 9, wherein both the forward rail 48 and the aft rail 50 extend radially outwardly from the longitudinal axis along which the arcuate base 46 extends) and the first engagement portion and the second engagement portion further extend along the longitudinal direction (see Fig. 2 and 5, and pg. 4, ln 21 - pg. 5, ln 9, wherein the forward rail 48 comprises longitudinally extending forward mounting flange 52 and the aft rail 50 comprises longitudinally extending aft mounting flange 54).
Regarding claim 28, Lee further discloses that the third radial direction of the puller hook is an outward direction from the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 2 and 5, wherein it is clear that the ridge portion of the puller hook extends radially outwardly from the longitudinal axis along which the arcuate base 46 extends).
Regarding claim 29, Lee discloses a turbine (high pressure turbine 10) having a longitudinal axis and a radial axis that is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis (see in re claim 21), the turbine comprising: a rotor assembly (22) encircling the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1 and pg. 3, ln 15 – pg. 4, ln 12); a tip shroud (assembly of tip shoes 32) encircling the rotor assembly (see Fig. 1 and pg. 4, ln 8-12); and a support ring (shroud hanger 34) encircling the tip shroud (see Fig. 1-2 and 5, and pg. 4, ln 8 - pg. 5, ln 2); the tip shroud including a plurality of tip shoes (shroud segments 32), each tip shoe including: a body with an upstream end and a downstream end, relative to a longitudinal direction parallel to the longitudinal axis (see in re claim 21), the body including: first engagement portion protruding in a first radial direction parallel to the radial axis and configured to engage with the support ring, and a second engagement portion protruding in a second radial direction parallel to the radial axis and configured to engage with the support ring (see in re claim 21); and a puller hook protruding from the downstream end in a third radial direction, extending in parallel with the first engagement portion and the second engagement portion, and spaced apart from a downstream side of the second engagement portion to define a void between an upstream side of the puller hook and the downstream side of the second engagement portion (see in re claim 21), the downstream end comprising a continuous surface extending from the second engagement portion to the puller hook (see in re claim 21), and the puller hook having an axially inner surface against which a force can be applied by a tool inserted into the void to push a tip shoe, of the plurality of tip shoes, out of engagement with the support ring (see in re claim 21).
Regarding claim 32, Lee further discloses that the first radial direction of the first engagement portion and the second radial direction of the second engagement portion is an outward direction from the longitudinal axis (see in re claim 24).
Regarding claim 36, Lee further discloses that the third radial direction of the puller hook protrudes outward from the longitudinal axis (see in re claim 28).
Regarding claim 38, Lee further discloses that the support ring includes a segment to provide a surface for the tool to contact when the tool is used to push the tip shoe out of engagement with the support ring (see Fig. 1 and annotated Fig. 2 above, wherein it is clear that the shroud hanger 34 comprises an aft radial wall that is capable of providing any number of surfaces upon which to anchor a tool used to push the tip shoe out of engagement with the support ring, thereby providing a point of leverage to assist the user in applying axially aftward-directed force on the axially inner surface of the puller hook).
Regarding claim 41, Lee further discloses that the first engagement portion includes a first flange (forward mounting flange 52) extending in the longitudinal direction (see Fig. 2 and 5, and pg. 4, ln 21 - pg. 5, ln 9), and the second engagement portion includes a second flange (aft mounting flange 54) extending in the longitudinal direction (see Fig. 2 and 5, and pg. 4, ln 21 - pg. 5, ln 9).
Regarding claim 42, Lee further discloses that the first engagement portion includes a first flange (forward mounting flange 52) extending in the longitudinal direction (see Fig. 2 and 5, and pg. 4, ln 21 - pg. 5, ln 9), and the second engagement portion includes a second flange (aft mounting flange 54) extending in the longitudinal direction (see Fig. 2 and 5, and pg. 4, ln 21 - pg. 5, ln 9).
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) 25-26 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Stahl (U.S. Pat. No. 5,927,942), with evidence provided by Yamazaki.
Lee exhibits the tip shoe of claim 21 (see in re claim 21). Lee fails to teach that an aperture is positioned in the first engagement portion and extending in the longitudinal direction, however such apertures are well known in the art. For example, Stahl exhibits a turbine tip shroud (34) comprising an annular array of circumferentially adjacent tip shoes (42) (see Fig. 1-6 and Col. 4, ln 11-46), each comprising an engagement portion (54) which comprises an aperture (see Fig. 4, wherein an aperture accommodates pin 108 within the engagement portion 54) that is positioned in the first engagement portion and extends (over its width) in the longitudinal direction (see Fig. 4). This aperture is aligned with a corresponding aperture (112) of the surrounding support ring (52), and the two apertures together accommodate an axial pin (108) positioned in the aperture of the tip shoe and configured to extend into the corresponding aperture of the support ring, thereby retaining the tip shoe in place circumferentially to the support ring (Col. 5, ln 25-33), and thereby preventing misalignment or mispositioning of the tip shoe. Thus, based on the teachings and example of Stahl, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first engagement portion of Lee according to the aperture-pin retaining configuration of Stahl, such that the first engagement portion comprises an aperture positioned in the first engagement portion and extending in the longitudinal direction, the aperture being aligned with a corresponding aperture of the surrounding support ring/structure, and the apertures together accommodate an axial pin positioned in the aperture and configured to extend into the support ring to retain the tip shoe in place circumferentially to the support ring, as taught by Stahl, in order to thereby prevent misalignment or mispositioning of the tip shoe relative to the stationary support structure and other engine components (see Stahl, Col. 5, ln 25-33), thereby ensuring that it is able to perform its protective function of containing the hot gas path gas within the turbine with minimal leakage.
Regarding claim 26, Lee as modified by Stahl according to claim 25 further exhibits an axial pin positioned in the aperture and configured to extend into the support ring (see in re claim 25).
Regarding claim 33, Lee exhibits the turbine of claim 29 (see in re claim 29). Lee fails to teach that an aperture is positioned in each first engagement portion and extending in the longitudinal direction, however such apertures are well known in the art. For example, Stahl exhibits a turbine tip shroud (34) comprising an annular array of circumferentially adjacent tip shoes (42) (see Fig. 1-6 and Col. 4, ln 11-46), each comprising an engagement portion (54) which comprises an aperture (see Fig. 4, wherein an aperture accommodates pin 108 within the engagement portion 54) that is positioned in the first engagement portion and extends (over its width) in the longitudinal direction (see Fig. 4). Each aperture is aligned with a corresponding aperture (112) of the surrounding support ring (52), and the two apertures together accommodate an axial pin (108) positioned in the aperture of the tip shoe and configured to extend into the corresponding aperture of the support ring, thereby retaining the tip shoe in place circumferentially to the support ring (Col. 5, ln 25-33), and thereby preventing misalignment or mispositioning of the tip shoe. Thus, based on the teachings and example of Stahl, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each first engagement portion of Lee according to the aperture-pin retaining configuration of Stahl, such that each first engagement portion comprises an aperture positioned in the first engagement portion and extending in the longitudinal direction, the aperture being aligned with a corresponding aperture of the surrounding support ring/structure, and the apertures together accommodate an axial pin positioned in the aperture and configured to extend into the support ring to retain the tip shoe in place circumferentially to the support ring, as taught by Stahl, in order to thereby prevent misalignment or mispositioning of the tip shoe relative to the stationary support structure and other engine components (see Stahl, Col. 5, ln 25-33), thereby ensuring that it is able to perform its protective function of containing the hot gas path gas within the turbine with minimal leakage.
Regarding claim 34, Lee as modified by Stahl according to claim 25 further exhibits an axial pin positioned in each aperture and configured to extend into the support ring (see in re claim 25).
Claim(s) 27 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Nigmatulin (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0068041 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Lee discloses the tip shoe of claim 21 (see in re claim 21). While Lee fails to explicitly teach that the puller hook extends along an entire downstream edge of the body (Lee is silent as to whether or not this is the case), such a configuration is well known within the art.
Nigmatulin, for example, exhibits a tip shoe configuration similar to that of Lee (see Fig. 2-3), wherein the tip shoe (shroud segment 48) comprises a puller hook structure (protruding hook structure 77) protruding from the downstream end of the body (main body portion 73) of the tip shoe in a radial direction and spaced apart from the downstream side of an aft engagement portion (second hook member 95) of the tip shoe to define a void (seal seat 100) between the upstream side of the puller hook and the downstream side of the aft engagement portion (see Fig. 2-3 and [0010-0011], wherein it is clear that, in a similar manner to the puller hook of Lee, the protruding hook structure 77 of Nigmatulin is capable of being engaged by a tool as a puller hook). As can be clearly seen in Fig. 3, Nigmatulin further teaches that such a puller hook may extend along an entire downstream edge of the body of the tip shoe.
Finally, applicant has not provided any evidence within the specification that the extension of the puller hook along an entire downstream edge of the body has any criticality to the intended function of the claimed invention (see [34] of the specification, for example, wherein for a tip shoe comprising a single continuous puller hook, the puller hook may extend over the entire circumference of the tip shoe body or over only a portion thereof). Indeed, if the intended function of the puller hook is merely to be engaged by a tool for applying an axially-directed force to the tip shoe, it would not seem necessary for the puller hook extends along an entire downstream edge of the body. As such, and because it is well known within the art to extend such features over the entire circumferential width of a tip shoe, as exemplified by Nigmatulin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a matter of routine design choice to embody the puller hook of Lee as extending along an entire downstream edge of the body in the same manner in which has been successfully practiced in the art (see in re Nigmatulin) and in which many structural features of tip shoes, such as the engagement portions, are routinely formed (as extending along the entire circumferential width of the tip shoe body).
Regarding claim 35, Lee discloses the turbine of claim 29 (see in re claim 21). While Lee fails to explicitly teach that the puller hook extends along an entire downstream edge of the body (Lee is silent as to whether or not this is the case), such a configuration is well known within the art.
Nigmatulin, for example, exhibits a tip shoe configuration similar to that of Lee (see Fig. 2-3), wherein the tip shoe (shroud segment 48) comprises a puller hook structure (protruding hook structure 77) protruding from the downstream end of the body (main body portion 73) of the tip shoe in a radial direction and spaced apart from the downstream side of an aft engagement portion (second hook member 95) of the tip shoe to define a void (seal seat 100) between the upstream side of the puller hook and the downstream side of the aft engagement portion (see Fig. 2-3 and [0010-0011], wherein it is clear that, in a similar manner to the puller hook of Lee, the protruding hook structure 77 of Nigmatulin is capable of being engaged by a tool as a puller hook). As can be clearly seen in Fig. 3, Nigmatulin further teaches that such a puller hook may extend along an entire downstream edge of the body of the tip shoe.
Finally, applicant has not provided any evidence within the specification that the extension of the puller hook along an entire downstream edge of the body has any criticality to the intended function of the claimed invention (see [34] of the specification, for example, wherein for a tip shoe comprising a single continuous puller hook, the puller hook may extend over the entire circumference of the tip shoe body or over only a portion thereof). Indeed, if the intended function of the puller hook is merely to be engaged by a tool for applying an axially-directed force to the tip shoe, it would not seem necessary for the puller hook extends along an entire downstream edge of the body. As such, and because it is well known within the art to extend such features over the entire circumferential width of a tip shoe, as exemplified by Nigmatulin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a matter of routine design choice to embody the puller hook of each tip shoe of Lee as extending along an entire downstream edge of the body in the same manner in which has been successfully practiced in the art (see in re Nigmatulin) and in which many structural features of tip shoes, such as the engagement portions, are routinely formed (as extending along the entire circumferential width of the tip shoe body).
Claim(s) 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Boeck (EP1462616B1).
Regarding claim 37, Lee discloses the turbine of claim 29 (see in re claim 29), wherein a C-clip (56) is used to hold the second engagement portion (aft rail 50) in engagement with the support ring (aft hook 44; see Fig. 1-5 and pg. 4, ln 21 - pg. 5, ln 17). Lee fails to teach a snap ring encircling the longitudinal axis and mounted into a radial recess in the support ring and abutting the second engagement portion of each tip shoe.
Such a configuration, however, is exemplified by Boeck, which exhibits an arrangement for fixing a stationary component (a tip platform of a stator vane 10) similar to the tip shoe/shroud of Lee to a support ring (casing 14) within a gas turbine engine (see Fig. 1-2 and [0011-0012]), wherein the stationary component may comprise a first engagement portion (extension 27) including a first flange extending in the longitudinal direction toward an upstream end of the stationary component and configured to engage the support ring (see Fig. 2-3 and [0011], ln 12-13 of the English Translation), and a second engagement portion (17) including a second flange extending in the longitudinal direction toward a downstream end of the stationary component and configured to engage the support ring (see Fig. 2-3 and [0012] of the English Translation). Boeck teaches that the second engagement portion of the stationary component and the support ring of the turbine may comprise a C-clip (23) which holds the second engagement portion (17) of the stationary component in contact with the support ring in a similar manner to that of Lee (see Fig. 2 and [0012]). However, Boeck also teaches that the turbine may further comprise a snap ring (retaining ring 15) encircling the longitudinal axis and mounted into a radial recess (groove 18) in the support ring and abutting the engagement portion of each stationary component (see Fig. 2 and [0011-0012]). Both of these features serve as an effective means to secure the stationary component against axial movement relative to the support ring (see Fig. 2 and [0011]).
As such, Boeck presents an alternative configuration known in the art to be equivalent in function to the type of connection presented in Lee, and it would thus have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reconfigure the connection between the second engagement portion of each tip shoe of Lee and the support ring of the turbine of Lee according to the configuration taught by Boeck, such that the turbine includes a snap ring encircling the longitudinal axis and mounted into a radial recess in the support ring and abutting the downstream end of the second engagement portion of each tip shoe in addition to a C-clip, as depicted in Boeck, as a simple substitution of one known connection configuration (that taught by Boeck) for another (that of Lee) in order to obtain a similar predictable result, both configurations serving as an effective means to secure the tip shoe against axial movement relative to the support ring, as described by Boeck (see Fig. 2 and [0011]). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 39-40 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art cited in this office action and any prior office actions represents the closest art to the claimed invention as found by the examiner. Regarding the above cited claims, none of these references teach or suggest the claimed invention as a whole, and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine teachings from these references to obtain the claimed invention. In support of this finding, a comparison of the present claim limitations to the closest prior art is presented below.
Regarding claim 39, the amended claim now recites the method steps of “placing a first segment of a tool in contact with an axially inner surface on an upstream side of the puller hook; positioning a second segment of the tool radially outward of the puller hook, the second segment being opposite the first segment; applying a force to the second segment of the tool to move the tip shoe in a downstream direction”, which alongside the remainder of the claim renders the claim patentably distinct over the prior art. While Jain teaches a tip shoe which comprises a puller hook structure (the aforementioned rim of Jain) capable of being engaged by a tool for allowing the removal of the tip shoe, Jain does not teach or suggest the actual method of doing so. Similarly, other references, such as Proctor (U.S. Pat. No. 6,139,257), which comprise puller hook capable structures (see prior Non-final rejection) also fail to teach or suggest the actual use of these structures with a corresponding tool for removing the tip shoe. Since these references represent the closest prior art to the claimed configuration, and since no other reference was found by the examiner which discloses or teaches this limitation, it is thus concluded that this claim and all dependent claims is patentably distinct over prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric A Lange whose telephone number is (571)272-9202. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-noon and 1pm-5:30pm.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached on (571) 270-3508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC A LANGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/CHELSEA E STINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783