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 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13, 15, 16, 18-21, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brockmann (DE 102019213251, with English machine translation) in view of Brockmann (EP 3785938, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Brockmann '251 discloses a tread block arrangement for a tire comprising a plurality of tread blocks (see Fig. 1).
As to the first and second bevelled edges and the first and second boundaries of the tread, Brockmann '251 does not expressly disclose the tread block arrangement as having bevelled edges and boundaries. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the tread block arrangement with bevelled edges and boundaries since (1) Examiner takes Official Notice that tires conventionally have toroidal shapes where the tread transitions to the sidewall--the transition point at each side of the tread defines the tread edges (boundaries) and corresponds to the recited bevelled edges; and (2) while the exact position is not disclosed in Brockmann '251, Brockmann '938 discloses a substantially similar tread block and groove arrangement and discloses the position of the boundaries as indicated by two lines "l" (see Fig. 1, [0019]). One would have been motivated to configure the tire with tread boundaries and bevelled edges so as to define a ground contact footprint that enables traction/drainage and to provide a conventional tire shape that enables its use on vehicles.
Brockmann '251 discloses a central line between the first boundary and the second boundary (see line A-A in Fig. 1, which Brockmann '251 defines as the equatorial plane, [0019,0033]), such that:
a first half is arranged on a first side of the central line and a second half is arranged on a second side of the central line so that the first half and the second half meet at the central line (the tread pattern has first and second halves, Fig. 1), the first half comprising:
a first primary pitch extending in an inclined manner from the first boundary towards the central line and a first secondary pitch separated from the first primary pitch by a first primary main groove (block groups are defined as pitches), wherein:
the first primary pitch comprises at least four tread blocks arranged within a first region of the first half and separated from each other by grooves, the first secondary pitch comprises at least four tread blocks arranged within the first region and separated from each other by grooves (groups of tread blocks are defined as first primary and secondary pitches, Fig. 1; see below wherein four blocks of a first primary pitch are defined, the first secondary pitch includes the set of four blocks circumferentially adjacent the first primary pitch).
As to the extent of the first region, the first region is construed as extending from the tread edge (i.e., comprises the first boundary) towards the equator to encompass the four tread blocks. Brockmann '251 does not expressly disclose the first region as having a width of at most 75% of a width of the first tread half. In the same field of endeavor of tire treads, Brockmann '938 discloses a tire tread having substantially similar block and groove arrangement wherein the position of grooves 7a defining the inner edge of the middle blocks (equivalent to third/fourth blocks and inner edge of first region) is at a distance a2 of 4.5% to 24.5%, preferably 10-17%, of the tread width B from the equatorial plane ([0025], Fig. 1). This equates to a distance of 9% to 49%, preferably 20-34%, of the width of the tread half (B/2) and thus, a first region width of about 51% to 91%, preferably 66-80%, of the width of the tread half. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the first region as at most 75% of a width of the first tread half since Brockmann '938 discloses a substantially similar tread pattern having similarly arranged blocks and grooves wherein Brockmann '938 teaches arranging the inner grooves 7a (which define the first region width) at 4.5-24.5%, preferably 10-17%, of the tread width from the equatorial plane ([0025]), which equates to a first region width of about 51-91%, preferably 66-80%, of the tread half width, said range overlapping the claimed range. One would have been motivated to position the grooves to control block rigidity, handling properties, and ensure effective drainage (Brockmann '938, [0005]).
Brockmann '251 further discloses the first primary pitch comprises (see annotated Fig. 1 below):
a first primary first block defining the first boundary,
a first primary second block defining the first boundary, the first primary second block begin separated from the first primary first block by a portion of a first primary first pitch groove,
a first primary third block arranged a distance spaced apart from the first boundary and separated from the first primary first block by a first primary second pitch groove, and
a first primary fourth block arranged a distance spaced apart from the first boundary and separated from the first primary second block by a first primary third pitch groove and from a first primary third block by a portion of the first primary first pitch groove,
the first primary first block, the first primary second block, the first primary third block, and the first primary fourth block are arranged on the first region,
at least a part of the first primary third block is arranged between the central line and the first primary first block,
at least a part of the first primary fourth block is arranged between the central line and the first primary second block.
PNG
media_image1.png
479
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to a length of the first primary first block as measured in a direction that is parallel to the first boundary being greater than a length of the first primary second block as measured in the direction that is parallel to the first boundary, Fig. 1 clearly depicts the first block as having a longer circumferential length than the second block.
Regarding claim 2, the first primary and secondary pitches comprise only two blocks the define the first boundary (see first/second of the first primary pitch above and adjacent blocks for the secondary pitch).
Regarding claim 3, the first primary first pitch groove is substantially parallel to the first primary main groove (Fig. 1). The longitudinal direction of the first primary second pitch groove and third pitch groove is at least 60 degrees with the longitudinal direction of the first primary pitch groove (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Fig. 1 depicts the third and fourth blocks with different widths (annotated below). Examiner notes that the variation in circumferential pitch length between blocks contributes to the varying width of the middle blocks since the inclined groove extend to different lengths and thus have variations in their extent across tire widthwise direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
500
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the tread block arrangement has a first secondary pitch with first secondary first, second, third, and fourth blocks ad first secondary first, second, and third pitch grooves with arrangement as claimed (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
479
624
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, the first secondary first pitch groove is substantially parallel to the first primary main groove (Fig. 1). The longitudinal direction of the first secondary second pitch groove and third pitch groove is at least 60 degrees with the longitudinal direction of the first primary pitch groove (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, the first secondary first block has longer length than the first secondary second block (see above).
Regarding claim 10, Fig. 1 depicts the third and fourth blocks with different widths (see annotated Fig. 1 and discussion above for claim 4).
Regarding claim 13, the block indicated in annotated Fig. 1 is construed as the integrated middle block that propagates through the tread block arrangement in a direction that is parallel to the first boundary and the second boundary (block extends in circumferential direction and is between the two tread edges and is separated from the first/second pitches by a groove). Propagates is understood to mean "to cause to extend to a broader area or larger number; spread" and "through" is understood to mean "in one side and out the opposite or another side of: went through the tunnel" or "among or between; in the midst of: a walk through the flowers." (American Heritage Dictionary). Here, the integral middle block is separated from the first and secondary pitches and extends in the circumferential direction amongst the blocks. It is considered to read on propagating through the tread block arrangement. The claim does not require the integral middle block extend continuously in the circumferential direction. Examiner also notes that continuous land portions are conventionally referred to as ribs whereas independent land portions delimited by lateral and circumferential grooves are conventionally referred to as blocks. A block from each pitch is arranged between the center line and the first boundary.
PNG
media_image4.png
590
797
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, the first primary main groove extends over almost the entire first half and forms angles with the first boundary and central line that are clearly depicted as well within the claimed range (angle is about 80 degrees with first boundary and about 30 degrees with central line). Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). MPEP 2125.
Regarding claim 16, a first tertiary pitch is arranged next to the first secondary pitch and separated by a first secondary main groove (see part of block and groove below the secondary pitch in Fig. 1; pattern continues in the circumferential direction).
Regarding claim 18, Brockmann does not expressly illustrate a first quaternary pitch next to the tertiary pitch; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the block arrangement with a quaternary pitch and first tertiary main groove as claimed since Brockmann discloses the pattern as continuing around the tread, thus forming additional pitches adjacent to each pitch (see [0018-0024]).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the tread blocks of the second half form a second pattern that is reflective symmetric about the center line with a first pattern of the first half (see Fig. 1). The pattern is obtainable by a translational movement of about 50% of the first primary/secondary pitch (second pattern is about halfway shifted from first pattern).
Regarding claims 21 and 23, Fig. 1 depicts a fifth block separated from the first primary third and fourth blocks by a first primary pitch groove (see annotated Fig. 1). The first primary first pitch groove continues into the fifth block and terminates such that the fifth block limits a part of a side wall of and the end of the groove.
PNG
media_image5.png
590
797
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 24 and 26, the pattern is construed as having a fifth block, a sixth block, integral middle block, and first primary first fifth and sixth pitch grooves (see above).
Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 22, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brockmann (DE 102019213251, with English machine translation) in view of Brockmann (EP 3785938, with English machine translation) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Tahara (US 20180297414) or Heinen (US 6415835).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 22, 25, and 27, Brockmann does not discloses groove bottom protrusions in the pitch grooves; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the grooves with groove bottom protrusions in view of:
(1) Tahara, similarly directed towards at tire tread, teaches providing joint grooves between blocks with raised end portions to improve steering stability on dry road surfaces ([0087]). Tahara discloses the portions have depth of 0.65 to 0.80 times the depth of the joint groove, which is in turn, 0.55 to 0.70 times the depth of the oblique grooves ([0086-0087]). Given a depth of about 8.5 mm ([0134]), this suggests a depth of about 3.0 to 4.8 mm, which is a height of 3.7 to 5.5 mm, said range overlapping the claimed range.
Or (2) Heinen, similarly directed towards a tire tread, teaches providing grooves with a plurality of peaks and valleys to increase water flow through grooves (col 3, lines 31-36; col 4, lines 34-60; height being less than 3 mm, col 5, lines 12-15).
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brockmann (DE 102019213251, with English machine translation) in view of Brockmann (EP 3785938, with English machine translation) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Hitzky (US 4823853).
Regarding claims 14 and 17, Brockmann does not expressly disclose the relationship of the pitch lengths of the first primary, secondary, and tertiary pitches; however, Examiner notes that it is very well known and conventional in the prior art to vary the length of pitches to reduce resonance noise, wherein consecutive pitches sometimes have different lengths or are identical. For example, HItzky discloses a preferred pitch sequence for highway passenger tires having three difference pitch sizes wherein some consecutive portions of the sequence have difference sizes (transition between S, M, L) and some portions have consecutive portions that are identical (col 2, lines 14-31). As to claim 14, employing two consecutive pitches that have different sizes would read on a first primary pitch having a greater length than a first secondary pitch (primary being the larger of the two consecutive pitches). As to claim 17, employing two consecutive pitches that are the identical would read on the first tertiary pitch being identical with the first secondary pitch. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the primary pitch with length greater than the secondary pitch and to have configured the tertiary and secondary pitches as identical in view of Hitzky's teaching of varying a pitch sequence with consecutive pitches having different lengths or being identical for the purpose of controlling noise (col 1, lines 50-64; col 2, lines 14-31).
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13, 14, 16-21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa (US 20100116392) in view of Peschel (EP 0788899, with English machine translation), Liederer (US 2004/0118494), and Hitzky (US 4823853).
Regarding claim 1, Yamakawa discloses a tread block arrangement for a tire comprising a plurality of tread blocks (see Fig. 1) comprising:
a first bevelled edge and a second bevelled edge, the tread blocks defining: a first boundary being a part where the first bevelled edge changes to a tread, a second boundary being a part where the second bevelled edge changes to the tread, the second boundary that is being parallel to the first boundary, (tread illustrated in Fig. 1 has shoulder ends 1e of the tread; it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention for the tire to have bevelled edges since Examiner takes Official Notice that tires conventionally have toroidal shapes where the tread transitions to the sidewall--this transition point defines the tread edge and corresponds to the recited bevelled edges);
Although not illustrated, Yamakawa's tread inherently has a centerline between the first and second boundaries in Fig. 1
The tread comprises a first half arranged on a first side of the central line and a second half arranged on a second side of the central line so that the first half and the second half meet at the central line (the tread pattern has first and second halves, Fig. 1), the first half comprising:
a first primary pitch extending in an inclined manner from the first boundary towards the central line and a first secondary pitch separated from the first primary pitch by a first primary main groove (block groups are defined as pitches separated by lug grooves 21), wherein:
the first primary pitch comprises at least four tread blocks arranged within a first region of the first half and separated from each other by grooves, the first secondary pitch comprises at least four tread blocks arranged within the first region and separated from each other by grooves (groups of tread blocks are defined as first primary and secondary pitches, Fig. 1; see below wherein four blocks of a first primary pitch are defined, the first secondary pitch includes the set of four blocks circumferentially adjacent the first primary pitch).
As to the extent of the first region, the first region is construed as extending from the tread edge (i.e., comprises the first boundary) towards the center to encompass the four tread blocks. Yamakawa does not expressly disclose the first region as having a width of at most 75% of a width of the first tread half; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the first region with width at most 75% of the tread half width since:
(1) Yamakawa clearly illustrates the position of the four outer blocks as well within 75% of the tread half width in Fig. 1, thus suggesting a first region width that is within the claimed range; and
(2) Yamakawa discloses the width W of the center rib 30 as 5 to 25% of the tire contact width TCW ([0037]), which means the width of the regions outside the center rib is 75-95% of the tread half width and the width of the first region (width between tread edge and groove 13) must be substantially less than 75-95% of the tread half width since the inner intermediate block 50 and groove 11 would be arranged between the first region and the center rib--this suggests a width range that overlaps the claimed range.
Yamakawa further discloses the first primary pitch comprises (see annotated Fig. 1 below):
a first primary first block defining the first boundary,
a first primary second block defining the first boundary, the first primary second block begin separated from the first primary first block by a portion of a first primary first pitch groove,
a first primary third block arranged a distance spaced apart from the first boundary and separated from the first primary first block by a first primary second pitch groove, and
a first primary fourth block arranged a distance spaced apart from the first boundary and separated from the first primary second block by a first primary third pitch groove and from a first primary third block by a portion of the first primary first pitch groove,
the first primary first block, the first primary second block, the first primary third block, and the first primary fourth block are arranged on the first region,
at least a part of the first primary third block is arranged between the central line and the first primary first block,
at least a part of the first primary fourth block is arranged between the central line and the first primary second block.
PNG
media_image6.png
656
704
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Yamakawa does not disclose a length of the first primary first block as measured in a direction that is parallel to the first boundary being greater than a length of the first primary second block as measured in the direction that is parallel to the first boundary. Examiner notes that varying pitch lengths and forming particular pitch sequences is very well known and conventional in the tire art as a means to control resonance noise. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the first block with greater circumferential length than the second block in view of (1) Peschel, similarly directed towards a tire tread, teaches configuring the shoulder blocks with different circumferential lengths to optimize the noise via pitch length variation ([0012]); (2) Liederer, similarly directed towards a tire trad, teaches varying the length of pitches to reduce noise ([0003,0005,0011]); and (3) Hitzky, similarly directed towards a tread, teaches modulating pitch lengths to optimize noise control (col 1, lines 12- col 2, line 58).
Regarding claim 2, the first primary pitch and second secondary pitch, respectively, comprise only two tread blocks that define the first boundary.
Regarding claim 3, the first primary first pitch groove is substantially parallel to the first primary main groove (Fig. 1, grooves 21 and 22 are substantially parallel). The longitudinal direction of the first primary second pitch groove and third pitch groove is at least 60 degrees with the longitudinal direction of the first primary pitch groove (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Fig. 1 clearly depicts the third and fourth blocks with different widths.
Regarding claim 7, Yamakawa's tread comprises a first secondary pitch having first secondary first, second, third, and fourth blocks along with first, second, and third pitch grooves therebetween as claimed (see annotated Fig. 1 above where blocks are identified; grooves are similar to that of the first primary pitch).
Regarding claim 8, the first secondary first pitch groove is substantially parallel to the first primary main groove (Fig. 1, grooves 21 and 22 are substantially parallel). The longitudinal direction of the first secondary second pitch groove and third pitch groove is at least 60 degrees with the longitudinal direction of the first primary pitch groove (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Yamakawa does not disclose a length of the first secondary first block as measured in a direction that is parallel to the first boundary being greater than a length of the first secondary second block as measured in the direction that is parallel to the first boundary; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the first block with greater circumferential length than the second block (1) Peschel, similarly directed towards a tire tread, teaches configuring the shoulder blocks with different circumferential lengths to optimize the noise via pitch length variation ([0012]); and/or (2) Liederer, similarly directed towards a tire trad, teaches varying the length of pitches to reduce noise ([0003,0005,0011]).
Regarding claim 10, Fig. 1 depicts the third and fourth blocks with different widths.
Regarding claim 13, Yamakawa discloses an integral middle block that propagates through the tread block arrangement in a direction that is parallel to the first boundary and between the first boundary and the second boundary (see center rib 30). The middle block (center rib 30) is separated from the first and second primary pitches by a groove (see groove 11 or 13). Blocks of the first primary and secondary pitches are arranged between the tread edge and the central line.
Regarding claims 14, Yamakawa does not disclose the pitch relationships as claimed; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configure the first primary pitch as greater than the first secondary pitch in view of (1) Peschel, similarly directed towards a tire tread, teaches configuring the shoulder blocks with different circumferential lengths to optimize the noise via pitch length variation ([0012]); and/or (2) Liederer, similarly directed towards a tire trad, teaches varying the length of pitches to reduce noise ([0003,0005,0011]).
Regarding claims 16 and 18, Yamakawa's pitch pattern repeats around the tread circumference and thus would comprises zeroth, tertiary, and quaternary pitches as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the pitches as claimed since Hitzky discloses pitch cycles wherein identical pitches are repeated as part of an optimized pitch sequence to control noise (col 2, lines 25-31).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the tread blocks of the second half form a second pattern that is reflective symmetric about the center line with a first pattern of the first half (see Fig. 1). The pattern is obtainable by a translational movement of about 50% of the first primary/secondary pitch (second pattern is about halfway shifted from first pattern).
Regarding claim 21, Yamakawa discloses the first primary first pitch as comprising a fifth block separated from the third block and fourth block by a fourth pitch groove (see inner block of block row 50 and groove 13).
Regarding claim 23, the fifth block limits a part of the sidewall and an end of the first primary first pitch groove.
PNG
media_image7.png
305
389
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Yamakawa discloses the first primary first pitch as comprising a sixth block separated from an integral middle block by a first primary sixth pitch groove (see inner block of block row 50 and groove 11).
Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa (US 20100116392) in view of Peschel (EP 0788899, with English machine translation), Liederer (US 2004/0118494), and Hitzky (US 4823853) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Heinen (US 6415835).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 22, and 25, Yamakawa does not disclose groove bottom protrusions in the pitch grooves; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the grooves with groove bottom protrusions in view of Heinen, similarly directed towards a tire tread, teaches providing grooves with a plurality of peaks and valleys to increase water flow through grooves (col 3, lines 31-36; col 4, lines 34-60; height being less than 3 mm, col 5, lines 12-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-13, filed 8/29/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under Brockmann (DE 102019213251) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Brockmann (DE 102019213251, with English machine translation) in view of Brockmann (EP 3785938, with English machine translation).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Applicant argues that the third and fourth tread blocks in Brockmann have equal widths.
Examiner disagrees. As shown in the annotated Fig. 1 above, there are differences in the widths between blocks. The variation in circumferential pitch length between blocks contributes to the varying width of the middle blocks since the inclined groove extend to different lengths and thus have variations in their extent across tire widthwise direction.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant assert that the "integral middle block" identified in Brockmann does not propagate through the tread block arrangement. The tread block only propagates a short distance from one traverse groove to another transverse groove.
Examiner disagrees. Applicant has not provided a special definition of the phrase "propagates through." The phrase has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Propagates is understood to mean "to cause to extend to a broader area or larger number; spread" and "through" is understood to mean "in one side and out the opposite or another side of: went through the tunnel" or "among or between; in the midst of: a walk through the flowers." (American Heritage Dictionary). The claim language is interpreted as not necessarily requiring the block extend continuously in the circumferential direction. The integral block in Brockmann extends among or between blocks in the tread pattern. Additionally, Examiner notes that claim 1 recites a tread block arrangement comprising a first primary pitch and a first secondary pitch. Claim 1 and claim 13 do not recite additional blocks or a continuous arrangement of blocks/pitches around the tread. In other words, the "tread block arrangement" at minimum requires a portion of a tread and not necessarily the entire tread circumference. Examiner also notes that continuous land portions are conventionally referred to as ribs whereas independent land portions delimited by lateral and circumferential grooves are conventionally referred to as blocks. Examiner suggests clarifying the integral block structure by describing it as continuous in the tread circumferential direction or as a rib.
Examiner has also made new grounds of rejection in view of Yamakawa which clearly depict third and fourth blocks with differing widths and a central rib.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C DYE whose telephone number is (571)270-7059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT C DYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619