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, 3, 6-10, 12, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu (US 10080343) in view of Ye et al. (CN 107372158).
Regarding Claim 1, Chu discloses an animal welfare ecosystem comprising:
a plurality of animal interactive devices (feeder 300, treat device 400, water device 500, scale 600, trainer 700, activity tracker 900) wherein each animal interactive device of the plurality of animal interactive devices is capable of measuring an animal’s interaction with said animal interactive device (“a measurement system may weigh food therein and provide an indication of the remaining food left.” Col. 7 lines 12-13; “Treat bin 410 may have a measurement system capable of determining how many treats are loaded into, or remaining in the bin 410.” Col. 7 lines 39-45; “Water bin 510 may have a measurement system capable of determining how much water is loaded into, or remaining in the bin 510.” Col. 8 lines 35-37; scale device 700 Col. 10 lines 9-29; “Pet activity tracking device 900 may further include an activity tracking 910. Activity tracking 910 may include one or more of a tracking module 912 (such as GPS), motion sensor 922 and a vitals monitor 914, such as a heart rate and temperature sensor.” Col. 11 lines 61-65); and
a computational hub in a communicative connection with each animal interactive device of the plurality of animal interactive devices (owner device 104; Figure 10);
wherein animal interaction at one animal interactive device will activate one or more of the other animal interactive devices to perform an activity (“Each device may be connected, wirelessly or wired, such that each device may communicate with each other device… if activity tracker 900 notices that pet has not had enough activity, trainer 700 may be activated to increase the activity of the pet… if scale 600 identifies that pet 110 is overweight, it may automatically communicate with feeder device 300 to change the feeding schedule 316 thereby putting the pet on a diet.” Col. 12 lines 59-67 and Col. 13 lines 1-3); and
wherein the measurement of animal interaction at any of the plurality of animal interactive devices is sendable to the computational hub (“food bin status 320 may be transmitted to owner device 104” Col. 7 lines 14-15; “treat bin status 416 may be transmitted to owner device 104” Col. 8 lines 11-12; “water bin status 516 may be transmitted to owner device 104” Col. 9 lines 7-8; Col. 10 lines 4-5; Col. 10 lines 48-49; Col. 12 lines 17-19), and wherein upon receipt of said measurement, the computational hub is configured to analyze the measurement (processor 138; Figure 1), and if the measurement reaches a pre-defined threshold of activity, the computational hub is configured to communicate with a different animal interactive device than the one from which the measurement was received to have said different animal interactive device perform an activity (“the pet activity tracker device altering configuration settings of the pet training device when the vitals monitor indicates that the pet activity is below a predetermined threshold.” Claim 1 and Col. 12 lines 59-67 and Col. 13 lines 1-3).
Chu fails to disclose wherein the pre-defined threshold is pre- defined upper threshold of activity.
However, Ye teaches a similar animal welfare device wherein if the measurement reaches a pre-defined upper threshold of activity, the computational hub is configured to communicate with a different animal interactive device than the one from which the measurement was received to have said different animal interactive device perform an activity (“The pet feeding method provided by the embodiment of the present invention monitors the consumption energy of the pet by using the pet wearing device, and when the consumption energy reaches a preset threshold, controls the central control device to feed food to the feeder by using a feeding instruction,” Page 4 lines 15-17 of translation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the threshold of Chu, to be an upper threshold of activity as taught by Ye, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help encourage a healthy lifestyle for the pet by preventing overfeeding and encouraging exercise (Ye Abstract and Background of Invention).
Regarding Claim 3, Chu as modified teaches the animal welfare ecosystem of claim 1. Chu further discloses wherein the computational hub is a stand-alone device selected from a computing device or a microcontroller (“Owner device 104 may be any device, such as a smartphone, computer, TV, tablet, laptop, smartwatch, etc.” Col. 3 lines 55-60).
Regarding Claim 6, Chu as modified teaches the animal welfare ecosystem of claim 1. Chu further discloses wherein the communicative connection may be enabled through physical wire(s), Ethernet cables, and/or one or more means of wireless connection (communication paths 112, 114, and 116 “A wireless communication protocol may include any one or more of Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), Zigbee, Wi-Fi,” Col. 2 lines 22-30).
Regarding Claim 7, Chu as modified teaches the animal welfare ecosystem of claim 1. Chu further discloses wherein the computational hub is in communicative connection with a dashboard or mobile application (pet owner application 146; Figure 1), and wherein the computational hub is capable of sending the measurements of animal interaction with each animal interactive device of the plurality of animal interactive devices to the dashboard or mobile application (Figures 1 and 10; “The pet device 106 then interacts with the pet 110 and transmits information regarding said interaction to either pet activity server 102 or owner device 104.” Col. 2 lines 46-49).
Regarding Claim 8, Chu as modified teaches the animal welfare ecosystem of claim 7. Chu further discloses wherein the dashboard or mobile application can send activity instructions to the computational hub to be relayed to one or more animal interactive devices of the plurality of animal interaction devices (“The pet owner 108 may then alter the preliminary information to set a desired pet facial recognition/monitoring/food intake estimation/feeding/activity schedule which is then used to configure the one or more pet device 106.” Col. 2 lines 40-46).
Regarding Claim 9, Chu as modified teaches the animal welfare ecosystem of claim 1. Chu further discloses wherein the plurality of animal interaction devices is selected from a water dispenser (water device 500), a feeder (pet feeder 300), a litterbox, an exercise device (training device 600), and/or a stimulating toy.
Regarding Claim 10, Chu as modified teaches the animal welfare ecosystem of claim 9. Chu further discloses the water dispenser includes a water receptacle (water device 500; Figures 10 and 5) and a plate securely placed in a position in front of the water receptacle (“scale 710 may be located in front of a food, treat, or water bin of devices 300, 400, 500 respectively such that the pet 110 stands on scale 710 when using devices 300, 400, and/or 500.” Col. 10 lines 26-29).
Regarding Claim 12, Chu discloses a method of monitoring health and behavior of one or more animals, the method comprising:
measuring an animal interaction with one or more animal interactive devices of a plurality of animal interactive devices within a defined area to form an animal interaction measurement (“a measurement system may weigh food therein and provide an indication of the remaining food left.” Col. 7 lines 12-13; “Treat bin 410 may have a measurement system capable of determining how many treats are loaded into, or remaining in the bin 410.” Col. 7 lines 39-45; “Water bin 510 may have a measurement system capable of determining how much water is loaded into, or remaining in the bin 510.” Col. 8 lines 35-37; scale device 700 Col. 10 lines 9-29; “Pet activity tracking device 900 may further include an activity tracking 910. Activity tracking 910 may include one or more of a tracking module 912 (such as GPS), motion sensor 922 and a vitals monitor 914, such as a heart rate and temperature sensor.” Col. 11 lines 61-65),
communicating the animal interaction measurement from the one or more animal interactive devices to a computational hub via a communicative connection (“food bin status 320 may be transmitted to owner device 104” Col. 7 lines 14-15; “treat bin status 416 may be transmitted to owner device 104” Col. 8 lines 11-12; “water bin status 516 may be transmitted to owner device 104” Col. 9 lines 7-8; Col. 10 lines 4-5; Col. 10 lines 48-49; Col. 12 lines 17-19); and
analyzing the measurement by the computational hub (processor 138; Figures 1 and 10; Col. 3 lines 61-65), and if the measurement reaches a pre-defined threshold of activity, activating a different animal interactive device than the one or more from which the measurement was received to perform an activity (“the pet activity tracker device altering configuration settings of the pet training device when the vitals monitor indicates that the pet activity is below a predetermined threshold.” Claim 1 and Col. 12 lines 59-67 and Col. 13 lines 1-3).
Chu fails to disclose wherein the pre-defined threshold is pre- defined upper threshold of activity.
However, Ye teaches a similar animal welfare device wherein if the measurement reaches a pre- defined upper threshold of activity, activating a different animal interactive device than the one or more from which the measurement was received to perform an activity (“The pet feeding method provided by the embodiment of the present invention monitors the consumption energy of the pet by using the pet wearing device, and when the consumption energy reaches a preset threshold, controls the central control device to feed food to the feeder by using a feeding instruction,” Page 4 lines 15-17 of translation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the threshold of Chu, to be an upper threshold of activity as taught by Ye, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help encourage a healthy lifestyle for the pet by preventing overfeeding and encouraging exercise (Ye Abstract and Background of Invention).
Regarding Claim 14, Chu as modified teaches the method of claim 12. Chu further discloses wherein the computational hub is a stand-alone device selected from a computing device or a microcontroller (“Owner device 104 may be any device, such as a smartphone, computer, TV, tablet, laptop, smartwatch, etc.” Col. 3 lines 55-60).
Regarding Claim 17, Chu as modified teaches the method of claim 12. Chu further discloses wherein the communicative connection may be enabled through physical wire(s), Ethernet cables, and/or one or more means of wireless connection (communication paths 112, 114, and 116 “A wireless communication protocol may include any one or more of Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), Zigbee, Wi-Fi,” Col. 2 lines 22-30).
Regarding Claim 18, Chu as modified teaches the method of claim 12. Chu further discloses wherein the computational hub is in communicative connection with a dashboard or mobile application (pet owner application 146; Figure 1), and wherein the computational hub is capable of sending the measurements of animal interaction with each animal interactive device of the plurality of animal interactive devices to the dashboard or mobile application (Figures 1 and 10; “The pet device 106 then interacts with the pet 110 and transmits information regarding said interaction to either pet activity server 102 or owner device 104.” Col. 2 lines 46-49).
Regarding Claim 19, Chu as modified teaches the method of claim 18. Chu further discloses wherein the dashboard or mobile application can send activity instructions to the computational hub to be relayed to one or more animal interactive devices of the plurality of animal interaction devices (“The pet owner 108 may then alter the preliminary information to set a desired pet facial recognition/monitoring/food intake estimation/feeding/activity schedule which is then used to configure the one or more pet device 106.” Col. 2 lines 40-46).
Regarding Claim 20, Chu as modified teaches the method of claim 19. Chu further discloses wherein the plurality of animal interaction devices is selected from a water dispenser (water device 500), a feeder (pet feeder 300), a litterbox, an exercise device (training device 600), and/or a stimulating toy.
Claims 4-5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Ye as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Asahara (US 2020/0149950).
Regarding Claim 4, Chu as modified teaches the animal welfare ecosystem of claim 1.
Chu further discloses the animal welfare ecosystem wherein the computational hub is hardware selected from a computing device or a microcontroller (“Owner device 104 may be any device, such as a smartphone, computer, TV, tablet, laptop, smartwatch, etc.” Col. 3 lines 55-60)
Chu fails to disclose the animal welfare ecosystem, wherein the computational hub is hardware selected from a computing device or a microcontroller located within one or more of the plurality of animal interactive devices.
However, Asahara teaches a similar animal welfare system, wherein the computational hub is hardware selected from a computing device or a microcontroller located within one or more of the plurality of animal interactive devices (“The control blocks of the control devices 20A and 20C (particularly, the CPU 24 in the control unit 21) may be implemented by logic circuits (hardware) fabricated, for example, in the form of an integrated circuit (IC chip) and may be implemented by software run by a CPU (central processing unit).” Paragraph [0120]; Control 20a shown attached to scale 2 and litterbox 12 in Figure 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computational hub of Chu, to be located within one of the animal interactive devices as taught by Asahara, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help decrease the number of parts needed for the user to keep track of, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 5, Chu as modified teaches the animal welfare ecosystem of claim 1.
Chu fails to disclose, the animal welfare ecosystem, wherein the computational hub is software located within one or more of the plurality of animal interactive devices.
However, Asahara teaches an animal welfare system, wherein the computational hub is software located within one or more of the plurality of animal interactive devices (“The control blocks of the control devices 20A and 20C (particularly, the CPU 24 in the control unit 21) may be implemented by logic circuits (hardware) fabricated, for example, in the form of an integrated circuit (IC chip) and may be implemented by software run by a CPU (central processing unit).” Paragraph [0120]; Control 20a shown attached to scale 2 and litterbox 12 in Figure 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computational hub of Chu, to be software located within one of the animal interactive devices as taught by Asahara, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help decrease the number of parts needed for the user to keep track of, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 15, Chu as modified teaches the method of claim 12. Chu further discloses wherein the computational hub is hardware selected from a computing device or a microcontroller (“Owner device 104 may be any device, such as a smartphone, computer, TV, tablet, laptop, smartwatch, etc.” Col. 3 lines 55-60).
Chu fails to disclose wherein the computational hub is hardware selected from a computing device or a microcontroller located within one or more of the plurality of animal interactive devices.
However, Asahara teaches a method, wherein the computational hub is hardware selected from a computing device or a microcontroller located within one or more of the plurality of animal interactive devices (“The control blocks of the control devices 20A and 20C (particularly, the CPU 24 in the control unit 21) may be implemented by logic circuits (hardware) fabricated, for example, in the form of an integrated circuit (IC chip) and may be implemented by software run by a CPU (central processing unit).” Paragraph [0120]; Control 20a shown attached to scale 2 and litterbox 12 in Figure 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computational hub of Chu, to be located within one of the animal interactive devices as taught by Asahara, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help decrease the number of parts needed for the user to keep track of, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 16, Chu as modified teaches the method of claim 12.
Chu fails to disclose the method, wherein the computational hub is software located within one or more of the plurality of animal interactive devices.
However, Asahara teaches the method, wherein the computational hub is software located within one or more of the plurality of animal interactive devices (“The control blocks of the control devices 20A and 20C (particularly, the CPU 24 in the control unit 21) may be implemented by logic circuits (hardware) fabricated, for example, in the form of an integrated circuit (IC chip) and may be implemented by software run by a CPU (central processing unit).” Paragraph [0120]; Control 20a shown attached to scale 2 and litterbox 12 in Figure 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the computational hub of Chu, to be software located within one of the animal interactive devices as taught by Asahara, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help decrease the number of parts needed for the user to keep track of, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Ye as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Simon et al. (GB 2600711).
Regarding Claim 11, Chu as modified teaches the animal welfare ecosystem of claim 10.
Chu fails to disclose the animal welfare ecosystem, wherein the water dispenser further includes a lick-circuit board which detects licks an animal takes from the water receptacle.
However, Simon teaches an animal water dispenser, wherein the water dispenser further includes a lick-circuit board which detects licks an animal takes from the water receptacle while sitting on the plate (capacitive drinking sensor 104; “embodiments may detect the immediate proximity, e.g. direct water touch by a tongue, paw or nose, of an animal via the detection of miniscule changes in capacitance” Page 17 Paragraph 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the water dispenser of Chu, with the lick-circuit as taught by Simon, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to easily determine the exact timing of when and how long the pet is interacting with the device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Ye as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Deutsch (US 2014/0251234).
Regarding Claim 13, Chu as modified teaches the method of claim 12.
Chu fails to disclose the method, wherein if more than one animal is placed within the defined area, each animal interactive device of the plurality of animal interactive devices will include an RFID reader, and each or the one or more animals will wear an RFID tag, such that each animal interactive device of the plurality of animal interactive devices will be able to identify which animal’s interaction they are measuring.
However, Deutsch teaches a method, wherein if more than one animal is placed within the defined area, each animal interactive device of the plurality of animal interactive devices will include an RFID reader (detection electrode 108; Figures 1, 10, 12, 13, and 16), and each or the one or more animals will wear an RFID tag (transmitting collar device 124), such that each animal interactive device of the plurality of animal interactive devices will be able to identify which animal’s interaction they are measuring (“With continued reference to FIG. 1, the animal 102 may be alternatively detected based on the animal 102 wearing a transmitting collar device 124 or other transmitting device. Accordingly, the transmitting collar device 124 may comprise an RFID tag, as an example. The transmitting collar device 124 may be detected and monitored if the animal 102 wearing the transmitting collar device 124 comes within close proximity to or in contact with an electrode associated with the monitored object.” Paragraph [0039]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the interactive devices of Chu, with the RFID tag readers and RFID tags of Deutsch, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the correct pet is getting the proper feeding and exercising schedules to keep them healthy.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu in view of Ye as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carson et al. (WO 2023/107918) and Wernimont et al. (US 2022/0087229) (cited by examiner in 892 dated 11/5/25).
Regarding Claim 21, Chu as modified teaches the animal welfare ecosystem of claim 1.
Chu fails to disclose the ecosystem, wherein the pre-defined threshold of activity of animal interaction at any of the plurality of animal interactive devices is configured to be changed by the computational hub based on past behavior, current behavior, and characteristics on an animal.
However, Carson teaches a pet training system, wherein the pre-defined threshold of activity of animal interaction at any of the plurality of animal interactive devices (“The method may further include determining, by the one or more processors, an expected distribution based on the subset of the plurality of historical pet eating data records, the expected distribution including a baseline, an upper threshold, and a lower threshold, wherein the upper threshold and the lower threshold correspond to the baseline” Paragraph [0054]) is configured to be changed by the computational hub (processers Paragraph [0054]) based on past behavior and current behaviors on an animal (“The baseline may be updated each time period (e.g., each day) based on the most current average of historical meal event values.” Paragraph [0054]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the threshold of Chu, to be able to be updated based on past and current behaviors as taught by Carson, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help provide flexibility, and ensure the pet receives the proper care, based on the current health status of the pet.
Additionally, Wernimont teaches a pet training system wherein the pre-defined threshold of activity of animal interaction at any of the plurality of animal interactive devices is configured to be changed by the computational hub based on characteristics on an animal (Paragraph [0093]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the threshold of Chu, to be able to be updated based animal characteristics as taught by Wernimont, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help provide flexibility, and ensure the pet receives the proper care, during every stage of their life.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an incentive based system and an interconnected rewards system) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, these features that Applicant remarks on pages 6-7 that Chu does not disclose, are not a specific structure that could be included in an apparatus claim.
Applicant argues on pages 6-7, and similarly on page 8, that “Ye does not utilize any animal interaction devices within its system, the pet wearing device of Ye is nothing more than a fitness tracker that monitors the movement of an animal. An animal within the system of Ye does not interact with this device… Ye's system does not teach the use of anything that the Animal can interact with.” The Office respectfully disagrees. As Applicant states on page 8, Ye teaches a fitness tracker that monitors the movement of an animal. The broadest reasonable definition of interact is for one thing to have an effect on another. In this instance of Ye’s invention, the pet interacts with the movement tracker by moving, and having the movement tracker track the movement. The movement tracker can then additionally calculate further parameters regarding the movement of the pet, furthering the interaction (Page 1 of translation of Ye).
Applicant similarly argues on page 9 that “Wernimont does not measure animal interaction with one or more animal interactive devices… All the system of Wernimont does is utilize sensors to track the movement and gait of an animal, the teachings of Wernimont does not include or contemplate measuring how an animal interacts with an interactive device.” The Office respectfully disagrees. A sensor tracking the movement of an animal and the gait of an animal would be considered an animal interacting with the sensor, in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the word interact.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/A.K.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642