DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Those objections and rejections that are not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claims 1-6, 9-18 are currently pending and rejected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Claim 17 recites the limitation, “a thickness of the circumferential flange.” Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient guidance as to in which direction is the thickness of the circumferential flange. That is, it is not clear whether the thickness extends in the same direction as the length (“l”) of the circumferential transverse fixing section, as shown in figure 2A or whether the thickness extends in a direction parallel to the common plane (P).
Therefore, this limitation must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 15 recite that the circumferential transverse fixing section comprises “at least one radially inward end.” It is not clear whether the “at least one radially inward end” is intending to refer to the same structure as “a radially inward side” as recited on the last two lines of claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the limitation, “a thickness of the circumferential flange.” Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient guidance as to in which direction is the thickness of the circumferential flange. That is, it is not clear whether the thickness extends in the same direction as the length (“l”) of the circumferential transverse fixing section, as shown in figure 2A or whether the thickness extends in a direction parallel to the common plane (P).
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.
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 1-6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denisart (US 20040228955) in view of Kruger (WO 2019149875 - cited on IDS; referred to as Kruger875) and in further view of Sager (US 4769095 already of record), Faller (US 4355755) and Wu (EP 734964)
Regarding Kruger (WO 2019149875) a machine translation has been relied on and is already of record.
Regarding claim 1, Denisart teaches a capsule (figure 7) for use in a beverage preparation machine, said capsule containing a soluble and/or extractable beverage ingredient (paragraph 59 where ground coffee and tea are extractable and instant coffee can be construed as soluble), the capsule comprising: a capsule body defining a chamber (see figure 7, inside item 66), the capsule body comprising: one or more side walls (figure 7, item 66), the one or more side walls extending axially towards a top opening, and a circumferential flange that extends radially outward from the one or more side walls (see figure 7, item 68), and a bottom beverage outlet (figure 7, item 77).
Denisart further teaches a top membrane (figure 7, item 67) attached to at least a part of an upper surface of the circumferential flange and closing the top opening (see figure 7 where the top membrane 67 is attached to the upper surface of the flange 68) and the top membrane is adapted to be punctured for liquid injection into the capsule (see for example paragraph 42 and paragraph 74 and figure 14), the top membrane and the circumferential flange extending along a common plane (see figure 7, item 68), and a bottom membrane (figure 7, item 72), provided inside the chamber so as to delimit between the top membrane and the bottom membrane an ingredient chamber, and an opening device (figure 7, item 73 which also has pyramidal spikes and a plate) provided inside the capsule body and adapted to open the ingredient chamber by relative engagement of the opening device with the bottom membrane under the effect of the liquid pressure increase in the ingredient chamber during injection of the liquid (see paragraph 67: “the rise in pressure will press the thin film (72) against the puncturing means”).
Claim 1 differs from Denisart in specifically reciting that,
the upper surface of the circumferential flange comprises at least one circumferential transverse fixing section, the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section extending transversely to the common plane,
wherein the top membrane is attached at least to the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section, wherein the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section comprises at least one recess, the at least one recess extending transversely to the common plane and from the upper surface of the circumferential flange inside the circumferential flange.
Kruger875 teaches a capsule for use in a beverage preparation machine (figure 1, item 2; paragraph 12), which capsule comprises a top membrane (figure 1, item 4) attached to a part of an upper surface of a circumferential flange (see figure 1, item 5 and 6). Kruger875 teaches that the upper surface of the circumferential flange comprises at least one circumferential transverse fixing section that extends transverse to the common plane (see figure 1, item 6; see paragraph 12 of the machine translation which discloses that the groove as shown in figure 1 is a circumferential groove).
Kruger875’s circumferential groove is a transverse fixing section comprising at least one recess that also extends transverse to the common plane and extends from the upper surface of the circumferential flange inside the circumferential flange (see figure 1 and 2a-2h). That is Kruger875’s fixing section extends transversely to the plane on which the top membrane and the flange extend. The top membrane is secured is attached to the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section (see paragraph 12 of the machine translation, “…characterized in that the capsule lid is at least partially attached to the flange in the region of the groove”; see paragraph 13: “Preferably, the capsule lid is fully attached to the groove…”).
Kruger875 teaches that such a fixing section can be useful for securely sealing the capsule lid to withstand pressure that can be generated from gas emitted from the raw beverage material inside the capsule (see paragraph 10 of the machine translation: “The beverage raw material inside the portion capsule emits gases…” and onward). At paragraph 17, Kruger875 teaches that such raw beverage materials includes roast coffee granules.
Since Denisart also teaches raw beverage materials such as roast coffee, and does not provide any specificity as to how the top membrane has been sealed to the capsule flange (see paragraph 72 and 75), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Denisart to provide a circumferential transverse fixing section comprising at least one recess that extends transverse to the common plane, as taught by Kruger875, for the purpose of ensuring that the lid remained securely affixed to the capsule flange so as to prevent generation of pressure buildup during storage, such as due to the release of gas from the food from breaking the seal between the capsule and the lid.
Regarding the limitation of, “wherein a bottom of the at least one recess presents a round concave shape, and a radially inward side and a radially outward side of the at least one recess present straight surfaces,” Kruger875 at figure 2d-2f teaches a radially inward side and a radially outward side that present straight faces. Kruger875 further teaches that the straight faces as shown in figure 2f can be useful for providing more surface area and material for sealing (see paragraph 97, “The pentagonal cross-section…This means more material is available for deformation and therefore for sealing…”). Kruger875 also teaches that the round bottom also allows for a large volume to be enclosed by the groove with low material usage while the oval bottom provides an undercut of the flange for helping to clamp the lid.
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the specific shape of Kruger875;s embodiment of figure 2f, for example to have a round bottom as taught by figure 2h for the purpose of providing more material available for deformation and sealing, while also being able to help clamp the lid in position.
Nonetheless, Sager teaches providing a circumferential transverse fixing section having a “U” shape (see column 2, lines 62-68; figure 2) which therefore would have had a round concave shape with straight surfaces for the radially inward and radially outward sides of the bottom. Sager teaches that such a shape allows for the film to be forced into the groove and to provide a seal that is welded to the round concave shape of the bottom as well as the straight surfaces (see column 3, lines 1-18).
Faller teaches a similar concept as that of Sager, where there is a concave round shape bottom to the circumferential transverse fixing section together with radially inward and outward sides that present straight surfaces (see figure 5 and 6, item 38 and 74 and the straight sections of the trough 38). Faller teaches that the cover film 42 is pushed into the fixing section (see column 4, lines 47-55) for providing a superior seal (see column 4, lines 60-65).
Wu also teaches a circumferential transverse fixing section on a flange of a container (see figure 5 and 9, item 24), which fixing section has a concave round bottom with radially inward and outward sides that have a portion thereof which are straight (see figure 6). A cover is secured within the fixing section and where the shape of the fixing section allows for the cover to be clamped into the fixing section (see column 7, lines 3-18).
To therefore modify the combination and to modify the shape of the at least one circumferential fixing section to have a bottom presenting a round concave shape and a radially inward and outward side to present straight surfaces would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing other known shapes which can desirably improve the clamping and seal between Denisart’s capsule body and the top membrane.
Regarding claim 2, Kruger875 teaches that the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section “can” comprise at least one circumferential recess around the top opening (see figure 1 item 6 and paragraph 12 which discloses a circumferential groove).
Regarding claim 3, Kruger875 teaches that the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section is positioned between a radially inward end of the circumferential flange and a radially outward end of the circumferential flange (see figure 1, where an outward end can be near item 9 and an inward end can be near item 5).
Regarding claim 4, Kruger875 teaches that a depth of the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section extends by a length of at least 0.2 mm (see paragraph 28). Applicant’s specification on page 11, lines 15-17 discloses that the length corresponds to a dimension along direction that is perpendicular to the common plane. (see figure 2A, item “l”) and therefore Kruger875’s depth is seen to be analogous to the claimed “length.”
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 14, Kruger875 teaches that the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section extends by a width of at least 0.8 mm (see paragraph 29, 0.2-5mm and most preferably approximately 3mm), thus teaching and suggesting a width that falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Kruger875 discloses that the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section comprises at least one radially inward end and at said radially inward end
PNG
media_image1.png
468
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kruger875 further teaches at paragraph 97 that the particular inclination can be useful for influencing the tightness of the seal. To therefore modify the combination to provide at least one radially inward end of the circumferential transverse fixing section to have an angle of for example, 20 or 45 degrees, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for achieving the requisite tightness to the seal.
Regarding claim 9, Kruger teaches that the top membrane is fixed to the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section by heat sealing (see paragraph 22 of the machine translation, last three lines: “It is also conceivable that the sealing seam was produced by introducing the heat through thermal sealing”).
Regarding claim 12, Denisart teaches a method for manufacturing a capsule said method comprising the steps of: providing a capsule body defining a chamber (see figure 7), said capsule body comprising: one or more side walls (figure 7, item 66), the one or more side walls extending towards a top opening (figure 7 and the opening that has been closed by the membrane 67); and a circumferential flange that extends radially outward from the one or more side walls (see figure 7, item 68), the circumferential flange extending along a plane; and a bottom outlet (figure 7, item 77), wherein an upper surface of the circumferential flange comprises at least one circumferential transverse fixing section (i.e. the surface to which the top membrane has been sealed).
Denisart teaches introducing an opening device (see figure 8 and 9) inside the capsule body (see paragraph 68-69: “an injection-molded disc placed on the bottom of the cup”),
attaching a bottom membrane (figure 10, item 92) inside the capsule body and above the opening device (see paragraph 72: “Thereafter, the thin film is sealed onto the internal edges of the bottom of the cup”) and
filling the capsule body with beverage ingredient (see paragraph 72: “and the substance is filled), and
fixing a top membrane to the upper surface of the flange of the capsule body (see paragraph 72: “finally the membrane is sealed”).
Claim 12 differs from Denisart in specifically reciting that, “the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section extending transversely to the plane, wherein the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section comprises at least one recess, the at least one recess extending transversely to the common plane and from the upper surface of the circumferential flange inside the circumferential flange,” and that the top membrane is fixed to the upper surface of the flange of the capsule body by applying heat to the top membrane positioned along the flange with a heating die, wherein the heating die presents a shape complementary to the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section of the flange and heats and presses the top membrane into the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section of the capsule.
Kruger875 teaches filling a beverage raw material into a capsule body and then closing the capsule body with a capsule lid (see paragraph 89). As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Kruger teaches that there is at least one circumferential transverse fixing section, extending transversely to the plane along which the flange extends.
Kruger875 further teaches that the top membrane is placed onto the upper surface of the flange (see figure 1 and 6a-6c) and that a heating die (figure 6, item 8) having a shape that is complementary to the transverse fixing section of the capsule is heated and presses the top membrane into the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section (see paragraph 50, “sealing with a sealing die having a beaded protrusion, by introducing heat…”; “securing by applying heat…Preferably, a sealing die with a beaded protrusion is used, which is complementary in size and shape to the bead, so that the beaded protrusion enters the bead and at least …fully presses the capsule lid against the walls of the bead and secures the capsule lid…fully in the bead.” See also paragraph 52, 97 and also see figure 4 and paragraph 101). By teaching the sealing of the membrane to the flange is done by introducing of a sealing die having a beaded protrusion and by introducing heat, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Kruger 875 is teaching and suggesting that heat has been applied to the top membrane with a die that is heated and which die heats and presses the top membrane in the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section of the capsule, for the purpose of providing a more securely sealed lid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Denisart to provide a fixing section that extends transverse to the plane that the flange extends on, and to fix the top membrane to the upper surface of the flange by applying heat to the top membrane positioned along the flange with a heating die, wherein the eating die presents a shape complementary to the fixing section of the flange and heats and presses the top membrane in the at least one transverse fixing section of the capsule, as taught by Kruger875, for the purpose of ensuring that the lid remained securely affixed to the capsule flange so as to prevent generation of pressure buildup during storage, such as due to the release of gas from the food from breaking the seal between the capsule and the lid.
Regarding the limitation of, “wherein a bottom of the at least one recess presents a round concave shape, and a radially inward side and a radially outward side of the at least one recess present straight surfaces,” Kruger875 at figure 2d-2f teaches a radially inward side and a radially outward side that present straight faces. Kruger875 further teaches that the straight faces as shown in figure 2f can be useful for providing more surface area and material for sealing (see paragraph 97, “The pentagonal cross-section…This means more material is available for deformation and therefore for sealing…”). Kruger875 also teaches that the round bottom also allows for a large volume to be enclosed by the groove with low material usage while the oval bottom provides an undercut of the flange for helping to clamp the lid.
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the specific shape of Kruger875;s embodiment of figure 2f, for example to have a round bottom as taught by figure 2h for the purpose of providing more material available for deformation and sealing, while also being able to help clamp the lid in position.
Nonetheless, Sager teaches providing a circumferential transverse fixing section having a “U” shape (see column 2, lines 62-68; figure 2) which therefore would have had a round concave shape with straight surfaces for the radially inward and radially outward sides of the bottom. Sager teaches that such a shape allows for the film to be forced into the groove and to provide a seal that is welded to the round concave shape of the bottom as well as the straight surfaces (see column 3, lines 1-18).
Faller teaches a similar concept as that of Sager, where there is a concave round shape bottom to the circumferential transverse fixing section together with radially inward and outward sides that present straight surfaces (see figure 5 and 6, item 38 and 74 and the straight sections of the trough 38). Faller teaches that the cover film 42 is pushed into the fixing section (see column 4, lines 47-55) for providing a superior seal (see column 4, lines 60-65).
Wu also teaches a circumferential transverse fixing section on a flange of a container (see figure 5 and 9, item 24), which fixing section has a concave round bottom with radially inward and outward sides that have a portion thereof which are straight (see figure 6). A cover is secured within the fixing section and where the shape of the fixing section allows for the cover to be clamped into the fixing section (see column 7, lines 3-18).
To therefore modify the combination and to modify the shape of the at least one circumferential fixing section to have a bottom presenting a round concave shape and a radially inward and outward side to present straight surfaces would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of providing other known shapes which can desirably improve the clamping and seal between Denisart’s capsule body and the top membrane.
Regarding claim 18, Denisart’s circumferential flange also includes a lower surface that is parallel to the common plane (see figure 6 and 7, item 68).
Claims 10 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Denisart (US 20040228955) as the primary reference, and in further view of Garcin (US 20160362246).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Denisart teaches that the capsule body and the top membrane are made of the same material, such as polypropylene (see paragraph 56 and 57). That is, at paragraph 56, Denisart teaches that the closed chamber can comprise a cup and a membrane, of which the plastic can be polypropylene. At paragraph 58, Denisart teaches that the thin film and the closed chamber can be made of the same material, thus teaching and suggesting that the closing membrane and the capsule body are made of the same recyclable plastic, such as polypropylene.
If it could have been construed that Denisart did not provide sufficient specificity with respect to the material of the capsule and the top membrane, then Kruger875 specifically teaches and suggests that the top membrane and the capsule can both be made from polypropylene (see paragraph 91 and 93). Additionally, Garcin teaches that the body and lid of the capsule can be made of polypropylene (see paragraph 99).
To therefore modify Denisart, who already suggests polypropylene for the top membrane and the capsule body and to specifically use polypropylene, as taught by Kruger875 and Garcin, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on known materials of construction usable for both the capsule body and top sealing membrane of a capsule used to prepare a beverage.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Denisart (US 20040228955) as the primary reference, and in further view of Garcin (US 20160362246) and Kruger (US 20240335061 referred to as Kruger061).
Regarding claim 11, the claim differs from the combination as applied to claim 1 in specifically reciting that the capsule and the top membrane are made of compostable and/or biodegradable material.
Garcin teaches that the body and lid of the capsule can be made of materials such as PLA-starch compounds (see paragraph 99) thus suggesting compostable and/or biodegradable material.
Nonetheless, if it could have been construed that Garcin did not specifically teach compostable and/or biodegradable material, then Kruger061 teaches a single serve beverage capsule where the single serve capsule, base element, flange and lid can be produced from a compostable material or a biologically decomposable material (see paragraph 31) for the purpose of being able to compost the entire capsule (see paragraph 44). Kruger061 also suggests materials such as polypropylene (see paragraph 62).
To therefore modify the combination and use materials for the capsule body and the top membrane that are compostable and/or biodegradable would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of making the capsule more environmentally friendly.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Denisart (US 20040228955) as the primary reference, and in further view of Orsi (US 20140199442).
Claim 17 differs from the combination as applied to claim 1 in specifically reciting that “the at least one circumferential transverse fixing section extends by a length that is less than a thickness of the circumferential flange.”
Orsi teaches a circumferential flange (see figure 2-3, item 10, 11, 13, 17) where there is a circumferential section that is recessed (see figure 2-3, item 13, 17, and which has a length that is less than a thickness of the circumferential flange (see figure 2-3, item 10). Orsi teaches that the thickened section 10 of the flange is useful for centering the capsule during use (see paragraph 25).
To therefore modify the combination and to provide a portion of the flange of Denisart that is thicker than the length of the circumferential transverse fixing section, as taught by Orsi, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of also helping to center the capsule during use.
Response to Arguments
On pages 10 to 11 of the response, Applicant urges that Kruger does not teach or suggest the claimed circumferential transverse fixing section with a recess having both a bottom presenting a round concave shape and radially inward and radially outward sides presenting straight faces and Garcin, Kruger061 do not cure these deficiencies.
These arguments have been considered but are not sufficient in view of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendment to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sawhney (US 5947278) teaches known angles for a circumferential fixing section at a flange can be for example, about 5 degrees (see figure 5A, 5B, item 38A, 38B and 52; column 6, lines 44-50).
Geisler (US 2828789) discloses a flange with a fixing section that has a round concave bottom with radially inward and outward straight surfaces (see the figure, item 3, 4, 7).
Sekiguchi (EP 344340) discloses a container with a groove that can have a round concave bottom and straight faces to inward and outward sides (see figure 5C,6, and 8B)
Hwang (KR 20110003369 U) discloses a container with a groove that can have a round concave bottom into which a lid is secured (see figure 6, item 20, 31, 32).
Coggrave (GB 421574) discloses a round concave shape with radially inward and outward straight faces (see figure 4, item 6)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights