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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-170234, filed on 10/18/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 4/16/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission received 1/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are drawn towards newly amended claim language.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
Applicant contends that the cited prior art fails to disclose newly amended limitations of independent claim 1, including “wherein the sensor substrate is disposed over a surface for mounting the second camera and the main substrate is disposed below the surface”
See the rejection below for how the cited art in light of new/existing references reads on the newly amended language as well as the examiner’s interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka et al. (JP 2004-312063 A) (hereinafter Hatanaka) in view of -Fish, JR. et al. (US 20120327234 A1) (hereinafter Fish) in view of Nandyala et al. (US 20240298083 A1) (hereinafter Nandyala).
Regarding claim 1, Hatanaka discloses:
A vehicle-mounted imaging system to be installed in a vehicle, [See Hatanaka, ¶ 0029, 0030, 0042, Fig. 1 discloses an image display system provided to a vehicle.]
the vehicle-mounted imaging system comprising:
a first camera; [See Hatanaka, ¶ 0029, 0030, 0042, Fig. 1 discloses a left front camera (1).]
a second camera installed at a different location than the first camera, and [See Hatanaka, ¶ 0029, 0030, 0042, Fig. 1 discloses a left front camera (1) and a right front camera (2), mounted respectively on the left and right ends of a front bumper installed on a vehicle.]
an image processing unit for processing images acquired by the first camera and the second camera, wherein [See Hatanaka, ¶ 0029, 0030-0032, 0040-0042, Fig. 1 discloses an image processing unit (31). Note particularly, when power is supplied, the timing control unit 30 first operates to generate a timing signal for operating the image processing unit 31 and the display unit 32 at a predetermined timing, and inputs the generated timing signal to the image processing unit 31 and the display unit 32. The timing control section 30 also generates a synchronization signal for synchronizing the left front camera 1 and the right front camera 2 , and sends the generated synchronization signal to the right front camera 2 via the communication interface 34 . As described above, the connector 35 sends a synchronization signal obtained from the timing control unit 30 via the communication interface 34 to the right front camera 2, and also obtains image frames from the right front camera 2 via cable 100b, and the obtained image frames are input to the image processing unit 31 via the communication interface 34.]
the first camera and the second camera are connected by a first communication line, and [See Hatanaka, ¶ 0029-0032 discloses that left front camera and right front camera are connected by cable 100a.]
the second camera and the image processing unit are connected by a second communication line. [See Hatanaka, ¶ 0029-0032 discloses that the right front camera is connected to the display device by cable 100b.]
Hatanaka does not appear to explicitly disclose:
the second camera including a sensor substrate arranged in a first direction and a main substrate disposed below the sensor substrate and arranged in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction;
However, Fish discloses:
the second camera including a sensor substrate arranged in a first direction and a main substrate disposed below the sensor substrate and arranged in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; [See Fish, ¶ 0062 discloses a camera connected with a “vertical” circuit board 74. The vertical circuit board is operably connected with a horizontal circuit board 78; See Fish, Figs. 13-19 illustrate a sensor substrate 74 in a “first” direction, and a “main” substrate 78 in a “second” orthogonal direction.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Hatanaka to add the teachings of Fish in order to reduce the size requirement of a vehicle camera imager cavity. (Fish, para. 0062)
Hatanaka in view of Fish does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the sensor substrate is disposed over a surface for mounting the second camera and the main substrate is disposed below the surface;
However, Nandyala discloses:
wherein the sensor substrate is disposed over a surface for mounting the second camera and the main substrate is disposed below the surface; [See Nandyala, Fig. 2 illustrates a camera “sensor substrate” or printed circuit board (10) being disposed “over” a surface (14) upon which imaging module (7) is mounted. A “main” printed circuit board (5) is provided below the surface (14); See Nandyala, ¶ 0078 discloses an image sensor unit being mounted on a separate printed circuit board than the main printed circuit board.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Hatanaka in view of Fish to add the teachings of Nandyala in order to provide a camera housing which shields one or more electronic components from electromagnetic interference.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala in view of Achenbach (US 20210188190 A1) (hereinafter Achenbach).
Regarding claim 13, Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the main substrate is thermally coupled to a cooling system disposed below the main substrate.
However, Achenbach discloses:
wherein the main substrate is thermally coupled to a cooling system disposed below the main substrate. [See Achenbach, ¶ 0031 discloses a heat sink 46 is positioned on the processor 20 to collect and dissipate heat generated by the processor 20; See Achenbach, ¶ 0028 discloses that the imager PCB 30 extending along the height H need not be parallel to the height H, and the imager PCB 30 can be tilted at an angle, as depicted, resulting in the other components of the imager assembly 24 being tilted as well. The magnitude of such angle can be selected to allow for the height H of the housing 12 to meet an operational constraint. For example, when a taller housing 12 is acceptable, then the angle can be 90 degrees, meaning that the imager PCB 30 extends parallel to the height H or perpendicular to the main PCB 16; See Achenbach, Fig. 4C illustrates an imager PCB (30), a “main” PCB (16), and a cooling system or heat sink (46) disposed below the main substrate.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala to add the teachings of Achenbach in order to provide imaging resiliency in a case that a camera of a multi-camera apparatus fails.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala in view of Noboru et al. (JP 2012011989A) (hereinafter Noboru).
Regarding claim 2, Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the second camera includes a parallax image forming unit forming a parallax image,
the first camera transmits an image signal of the first camera to the second camera through the first communication line,
the parallax image forming unit forms the parallax image using an image signal of the first camera and an image signal of the second camera, and
the second camera transmits an image signal of the first camera, an image signal of the second camera, and the parallax image formed by the parallax image forming unit to the image processing unit through the second communication line.
However, Noboru discloses:
wherein the second camera includes a parallax image forming unit forming a parallax image, [See Noboru, ¶ 0019-0020, 0021-0022, 0025-0033 discloses that a stereo camera SC includes a stereo processing unit (33), whereby each image capture unit 32 is a processing unit that captures an image signal from the CMOS sensor 31, generates an image signal from the image sensor, and supplies the image signal to the stereo processing unit 33.]
the first camera transmits an image signal of the first camera to the second camera through the first communication line, [See Noboru, ¶ 0019-0020, 0021-0022, 0025-0033, Figs. 3, 5 discloses that a communication control unit 35 is a processing unit that, when it receives three-dimensional shape recognition information from the three-dimensional recognition unit 34, transmits the recognition information to the control device 11, and when it receives three-dimensional shape recognition information from other stereo cameras SC, transfers the recognition information to the control device 11.]
the parallax image forming unit forms the parallax image using an image signal of the first camera and an image signal of the second camera, and [See Noboru, ¶ 0019-0020, 0021-0022, 0025-0033, Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10-11 discloses a stereo processing unit generating a distance image, and an event detection unit that detects a predetermined event based on information on the distance image generated by the stereo processing unit 33 or at least one of the at least two image signals. It is noted that image signals are transmitted via an ethernet-cable daisy-chain configuration between camera modules.]
the second camera transmits an image signal of the first camera, an image signal of the second camera, and the parallax image formed by the parallax image forming unit to the image processing unit through the second communication line. [See Noboru, ¶ 0019-0020, 0021-0022, 0025-0033, Fig. 3 discloses that a communication control unit 35 is a processing unit that, when it receives three-dimensional shape recognition information from the three-dimensional recognition unit 34, transmits the recognition information to the control device 11, and when it receives three-dimensional shape recognition information from other stereo cameras SC, transfers the recognition information to the control device 11. Further, that a control device 11 (image processing unit), whereby the communication control unit 35 is also connected to the image acquisition unit 32, so that the image signals of the moving images obtained from both or one of the CMOS sensors 31 can be transmitted to the control device 11 at a predetermined timing.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala to add the teachings of Noboru in order to permit stereo cameras to be added to an array in a scalable manner with a powered daisy-chain configuration.
Regarding claim 4, Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Noboru discloses:
wherein electric power is supplied from the second camera to the first camera. [See Noboru, ¶ 0016-0019, 0024, 0033, 0034 discloses a system of stereo cameras interconnected in a daisy chain configuration, such that power is supplied from a “first” camera to a “second” camera in the chain.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Noboru discloses:
wherein the second camera includes a semiconductor having a parallax image forming function, [See Noboru, ¶ 0025-0031 discloses generating a distance image via stereo processing based on image signals of two input moving images.]
stereo matching processing is performed using an image of the first camera and an image of the second camera, and [See Noboru, ¶ 0028-0030, 0045-0048, 0066, 0076-0078, discloses performing stereo processing whereby it is determined whether recognition information is acquired among stereo camera units.]
a distance image including parallax information formed by the semiconductor is outputted to the image processing unit. [See Noboru, ¶ 0028-0030 discloses generating a distance image based on the image signals of two input moving images.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala in view of Noboru discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Noboru discloses:
wherein the second camera transmits an image signal of either one of the first camera or the second camera to the image processing unit when a common region of an imaging area of the first camera and the second camera is equal to a predetermined area or more, and [See Noboru, ¶ 0062-0064 discloses a range in which stereo processing is possible with one stereo camera being an area in which the fields of view of the two CMOS sensors 31 overlap.]
the second camera transmits image signals of both of the first camera and the second camera to the image processing unit when a common region of an imaging area of the first camera and the second camera is less than a predetermined area. [See Noboru, ¶ 0062-0064 discloses stereo processing being possible by using two CMOS sensors 31, by using images from CMOS sensors that are closer to each other.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 2.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala in view of Yoshikawa et al. (US 20200104604 A1) (hereinafter Yoshikawa).
Regarding claim 3, Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the second camera is installed at a location with different height than the first camera.
However, Yoshikawa discloses:
wherein the second camera is installed at a location with different height than the first camera. [See Yoshikawa, ¶ 0022-0025, Fig. 2 discloses a first camera (1a), and a second camera (1c) at observably different heights.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala to add the teachings of Yoshikawa in order to provide improved coverage of stereoscopic cameras in a vehicular detection system.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala in view of Yamazaki (JP 2021039018 A) (hereinafter Yamazaki).
Regarding claim 5, Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the second camera includes a temperature sensor, and
the second camera is cooled or heated by an air conditioning mechanism of the vehicle when the temperature sensor detects a predetermined temperature.
However, Yamazaki discloses:
wherein the second camera includes a temperature sensor, and [See Yamazaki, ¶ 0014, 0040-0044 discloses a multiple camera arrangement mounted on a vehicle, wherein a “second” camera (50) is equipped with a temperature sensor (53).]
the second camera is cooled or heated by an air conditioning mechanism of the vehicle when the temperature sensor detects a predetermined temperature. [See Yamazaki, ¶ 0014, 0040-0044 discloses that if the absolute value of the difference between the temperature detected at the temperature sensor 53 and the temperature detected at the temperature sensor 63 is a predetermined value or higher, then the temperature difference is reduced by cooling or heating a camera, and that air conditioning is used for temperature regulation if in a vehicle-mounted use-case.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala to add the teachings of Yamazaki in order to selectively heat or cool camera units of a stereo camera pair according to a detected temperature discrepancy or variation among said cameras comprising the stereo pair.
Regarding claim 6, Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala in view of Yamazaki discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Yamazaki discloses:
wherein the first camera includes a temperature sensor that is different from the temperature sensor, and [See Yamazaki, ¶ 0014, 0040-0044 discloses a multiple camera arrangement mounted on a vehicle, wherein a “first” camera (60) is equipped with a temperature sensor (63); See Yamazaki, ¶ 0014, 0040-0044 discloses a multiple camera arrangement mounted on a vehicle, wherein a “second” camera (50) is equipped with a temperature sensor (53), wherein cameras 50 and 60 comprise a stereo pair.]
the air conditioning mechanism of the vehicle is controlled so that difference between a value of a temperature sensor of the first camera and a value of a temperature sensor of the second camera falls within a predetermined range. [See Yamazaki, ¶ 0014, 0040-0044 discloses that if the absolute value of the difference between the temperature detected at the temperature sensor 53 and the temperature detected at the temperature sensor 63 is a predetermined value or higher, then the temperature difference is reduced by cooling or heating a camera, and that air conditioning is used for temperature regulation if in a vehicle-mounted use-case.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 5.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala in view of Nisenzon (US 20200257306 A1) (hereinafter Nisenzon).
Regarding claim 8, Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the vehicle is a passenger car or a truck, and
the second camera is installed on a dashboard or within a dashboard of the vehicle.
However, Nisenzon discloses:
wherein the vehicle is a passenger car or a truck, and [See Nisenzon, ¶ 0068, 0116, 0118 and Fig. 4 discloses an autonomous vehicle with multiple sets of multi-resolution cameras disposed for stereo imaging and parallax shifting.]
the second camera is installed on a dashboard or within a dashboard of the vehicle. [See Nisenzon, ¶ 0068, 0116, 0118 and Fig. 4 discloses an autonomous vehicle with multiple sets of multi-resolution cameras disposed for stereo imaging and parallax shifting. A set of multi-resolution cameras 402A may be placed at front or dashboard or top of autonomous vehicle 400 (e.g., 402) facing forward to generate distance measurements from about 50 cm to 350 m.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala to add the teachings of Nisenzon in order to compute short, medium, and long distances to objects (Nisenzon, paragraph 0068).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala in view of Shelton (US 11697466 B1) (hereinafter Shelton).
Regarding claim 9, Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the vehicle is a motorcycle,
the first camera is installed on a front surface upper side of a cowl, and
the second camera is installed on a front surface lower side of the cowl.
However, Shelton discloses:
wherein the vehicle is a motorcycle, [See Shelton, Fig. 1]
the first camera is installed on a front surface upper side of a cowl, and [See Shelton, Fig. 1 illustrates a “first camera” (35) on an outward-facing (front surface) of an “upper side” of motorcycle housing.]
the second camera is installed on a front surface lower side of the cowl. [See Shelton, Fig. 1 illustrates a “first camera” (35) on an outward-facing (front surface) of a “lower side” of motorcycle housing, the “lower side” being lower than the “upper side” corresponding with “first camera” (35).]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala to add the teachings of Shelton in order to enable processing of a plurality of video signals from a first and second video camera to work in conjunction with an alarm output system functioning to detect a possibility of a collision around a motorcycle.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala in view of Noboru in view of Han (US 20120206568 A1) (hereinafter Han).
Regarding claim 10, Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala in view of Noboru discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala in view of Noboru does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein when either one of the first camera and the second camera fails,
the second camera stops formation of a parallax image by the parallax image forming unit, and transmits an image signal of a camera having not failed to the image processing unit.
However, Han discloses:
wherein when either one of the first camera and the second camera fails, [See Han, ¶ 0032, 0076 discloses computing device 100 (and/or one or more of the applications 140 thereof) can be configured to change between image modes in response to failure of at least one of the image capture devices 162, 164.]
the second camera stops formation of a parallax image by the parallax image forming unit, and transmits an image signal of a camera having not failed to the image processing unit. [See Han, ¶ 0032, 0076 discloses computing device 100 (and/or one or more of the applications 140 thereof) can be configured to change between image modes in response to failure of at least one of the image capture devices 162, 164. For example, the computing device 100 (and/or one or more of the applications 140 thereof) can be configured to produce stereoscopic image (when in the stereoscopic mode) based on images captured by the image capture devices 162, 164. The computing device 100 can be configured to change from the stereoscopic mode to a single-image mode in response to failure of the image capture device 162.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala in view of Noboru to add the teachings of Han in order to provide imaging resiliency in a case that a camera of a multi-camera apparatus fails.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala in view of Brzobohaty et al. (US 20210021747 A1) (hereinafter Brzobohaty).
Regarding claim 12, Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the sensor substrate is separated from the main substrate by a dashboard of the vehicle.
However, Brzobohaty discloses:
wherein the sensor substrate is separated from the main substrate by a dashboard of the vehicle. [See Brzobohaty, Figs. 1, 1d, and 2 illustrate a camera sensor substrate 11 separated from a main substrate 22 by a thermal insulation partition (3). Although not explicitly recited as a dashboard, Brzobohaty’s “thermal insulation partition” and more so, teachings of separating an imaging substrate from a main processing substrate are within the level of ordinary skill when taken within the context of Hatanaka and Fish.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Hatanaka in view of Fish in view of Nandyala to add the teachings of Brzobohaty in order to thermally isolate different substrates.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK E DEMOSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-8799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 5712727384. 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.
/PATRICK E DEMOSKY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486