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 Objections
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “melting phase change material” and should recite - - melting the phase change material - - for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 2-8 are objected to as being dependent from an objected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 9-20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “less than about 1° F”. The term “about” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination “less than about 1° F” will be considered - - less than 1° F - - .
Claim 3 recites “a delta disparity”. It is unclear if this is the same “delta disparity” as recited in claim 1. For purposes of examination “a delta disparity” will be considered - - the delta disparity - - .
Claim 9 recites “comprising phase change material”. It is unclear if this is the same phase change material as recited earlier in claim 9. For purposes of examination “comprising phase change material” will be considered - - comprising the phase change material - - .
Claim 17 recites “comprising phase change material”. It is unclear if this is the same phase change material as recited earlier in claim 9. For purposes of examination “comprising phase change material” will be considered - - comprising the phase change material - - .
Claim 19 recites “at least one of the roof and the wall and accommodating another phase change material blanket exposed to the attic space”. The metes and bound of this recitation are unclear. For purposes of examination “at least one of the roof and the wall and accommodating another phase change material blanket exposed to the attic space” will be considered - - at least one of the roof and the wall accommodating another phase change material blanket exposed to the attic space - - .
Claim(s) 10-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected to as being dependent from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9, 11-12, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parker et al. (WO 2011/075541).
Per claim 1, Parker teaches a method of cooling a facility space (i.e. “building”, pg. 23, line 10) below a ceiling (“ceilings”, pg. 23, line 10), the method comprising:
installing ductwork (“HVAC ducts”, pg. 23, line 11) in an attic space (i.e. “attic”, pg. 23, line 11) above the ceiling;
the attic space to display a vertical delta temperature disparity (inherent as hot air rises);
positioning a phase change material blanket about the ductwork (“the PCM blankets can act as self-contained PCM delivery systems to deliver phase change material to multiple locations within a building envelope, including but not limited to walls (inside or outside of buildings), ceilings, floors, attics (with or without insulation), HVAC ducts,”, pg. 24, lines 12-14);
flowing conditioned air through the ductwork at a temperature below that of a temperature outside of the facility space (inherent function of an HVAC system);
absorbing heat from the attic space with the phase change material blanket (inherent; i.e. the purpose of the phase change blanket is to absorb heat from the surrounding space, i.e. attic space);
melting phase change material of the blanket by the absorbing for reducing exposure of the ductwork to attic space heat to minimize a delta disparity of temperature to the flowing of the conditioned air (inherent, the purpose of “phase change material” is to changes phases (i.e. melt) while absorbing heat from a surrounding space) (to clarify, Parker recites “the encapsulated phase change material in the middle layer PCM Mix may comprise phase change material having enthalpy values in at least the range of about 35 to 200 j/g, with melting points from at least about -5 to 95°C,”(pg. 23, lines 21-24), thus when the phase change material melting point is lower than the conditioned air, the melting will reduce the exposure of the ductwork to the attic space heat to minimize the delta disparity of temperature to the flowing of the conditioned air);
delivering the conditioned air from the ductwork to the facility space below (inherent purpose of an HVAC system is to deliver conditioned air).
Per claim 5, AAPA, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, AAPA, as modified, teaches wherein the melting of the phase change material (inherent function of phase change material) is in a substantially uniform manner through the blanket in response to the absorbing of the heat from the attic space (all melting is considered to be in a uniform manner since the transition from solid to liquid is uniform, i.e. from solid to solid/liquid to liquid).
Per claim 9, Parker teaches a ductwork system for cooling a facility space below a ceiling, the system comprising:
a ductwork (“HVAC ducts”, pg. 23, line 11) in an attic space (i.e. “attic”, pg. 23, line 11) above the ceiling to accommodate conditioned air flowing at a temperature below that of a temperature outside of the facility (inherent to a “central air system”, para. 0007),
the attic space to display an elevated vertical temperature gradient (inherent as hot air rises); and
a phase change material blanket about an exterior of the ductwork (“the PCM blankets can act as self-contained PCM delivery systems to deliver phase change material to multiple locations within a building envelope, including but not limited to walls (inside or outside of buildings), ceilings, floors, attics (with or without insulation), HVAC ducts,”, pg. 24, lines 12-14),
the blanket comprising the phase change material to absorb heat from the attic space to minimize a delta disparity of temperature to the flowing of the conditioned air (“the PCM blankets can act as self-contained PCM delivery systems to deliver phase change material to multiple locations within a building envelope, including but not limited to walls (inside or outside of buildings), ceilings, floors, attics (with or without insulation), HVAC ducts,”, pg. 24, lines 12-14).
Further, it is understood claim 9 includes the recitation “to absorb heat from the attic space to minimize a delta disparity of temperature to the flowing of the conditioned air” which is considered to be a statement of intended use. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here (MPEP 2114, section II). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
To clarify, the PCM blanket of parker is fully capable of absorbing heat from the attic space to minimize a delta disparity of tempter to the flowing of the conditioned air.
Per claim 11, Parker meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 9. Further, Parker teaches one of a phase change material blanket and another phase change material blanket positioned on an upper surface of the ceiling (“the PCM blankets can act as self-contained PCM delivery systems to deliver phase change material to multiple locations within a building envelope, including but not limited to walls (inside or outside of buildings), ceilings, floors, attics (with or without insulation), HVAC ducts,”, pg. 24, lines 12-14).
Per claim 12, Parker meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 9. Further, Parker teaches wherein the phase change material is a paraffin (“paraffinic hydrocarbon phase change materials”, pg. 30, lines 24-25).
Per claim 17, Parker teaches a structural facility with a facility space below a ceiling that is of a temperature below that of an attic space above the ceiling, the facility comprising:
ductwork (“HVAC ducts”, pg. 23, line 11) in the attic space (i.e. “attic”, pg. 23, line 11),
the attic space (i.e. “attic”, pg. 23, line 11) to display an elevated vertical temperature gradient (inherent as hot air rises),
the ductwork defining a channel to accommodate a flow of conditioned air at a temperature below that of a temperature outside of the facility space (inherent to an HVAC system);
a phase change material blanket about an exterior of the ductwork (“the PCM blankets can act as self-contained PCM delivery systems to deliver phase change material to multiple locations within a building envelope, including but not limited to walls (inside or outside of buildings), ceilings, floors, attics (with or without insulation), HVAC ducts,”, pg. 24, lines 12-14),
the blanket comprising a phase change material to absorb attic space heat for minimizing a delta disparity of temperature to the flowing of the conditioned air (“the PCM blankets can act as self-contained PCM delivery systems to deliver phase change material to multiple locations within a building envelope, including but not limited to walls (inside or outside of buildings), ceilings, floors, attics (with or without insulation), HVAC ducts,”, pg. 24, lines 12-14).
Further, it is understood claim 9 includes the recitation “to absorb attic space heat for minimizing a delta disparity of temperature to the flowing of the conditioned air” which is considered to be a statement of intended use. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here (MPEP 2114, section II). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
To clarify, the PCM blanket of parker is fully capable of absorbing heat from the attic space to minimize a delta disparity of tempter to the flowing of the conditioned air.
Per claim 19, Parker meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 9. Further, Parker teaches a wall defining the attic space (inherent) and the wall exposed to the attic space (inherent) accommodating another phase change material blanket exposed to an attic space (“the PCM blankets can act as self-contained PCM delivery systems to deliver phase change material to multiple locations within a building envelope, including but not limited to walls (inside or outside of buildings), ceilings, floors, attics (with or without insulation), HVAC ducts,”, pg. 24, lines 12-14).
Per claim 20, Parker meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 9. Further Parker teaches wherein the temperature modulating blanket is installed at an upper surface of a ceiling and around a portion of the ductwork (“the PCM blankets can act as self-contained PCM delivery systems to deliver phase change material to multiple locations within a building envelope, including but not limited to walls (inside or outside of buildings), ceilings, floors, attics (with or without insulation), HVAC ducts,”, pg. 24, lines 12-14).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. (WO 2011/075541).
Per claim 3, Parker meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Parker teaches reducing the exposure of the ductwork to the heat of the attic space to minimize the delta disparity (see rejection of claim 1) but fails to explicitly teach reducing the delta disparity of less than 1° F at the ductwork.
However, one skilled in the art would know that the greater the amount of phase change material the greater the amount of cooling provided to the air within the ductwork and reduced delta disparity from the heat in the attic space. Therefore the delta disparity is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that as the amount of phase change material is adjusted the delta disparity within the ductwork will be adjusted. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. reducing the exposure of the ductwork from the heat of the attic space to minimize the delta disparity was disclosed in the prior art by Parker it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable value of the delta disparity by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the delta disparity disclosed by Parker being less than 1° F.
Per claim 10, Parker meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 9. Further, Parker fails to explicitly teach wherein the temperature modulating blanket is wrapped substantially around an entirety of an outer surface of the ductwork.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art using known methods to yield predicable results to have the temperature modulating blanket is wrapped substantially around an entirety of an outer surface of the ductwork. It would have been obvious to have the temperature modulating blanket is wrapped substantially around an entirety of an outer surface of the ductwork to fully insulate the conditioned air flowing through the duct from a hot attic space. Further, there is no change in the respective functions of the temperature modulating blanket. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the temperature modulating blanket is wrapped substantially around an entirety of an outer surface of the ductwork in order to advantageously fully insulate the conditioned air flowing through the duct from a hot attic space.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. (WO 2011/075541) in view of Wagner (DE102008032348).
Per claim 4, Parker meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Parker teaches refreezing the phase change material after the melting when the temperature outside of the facility space drops (this is the inherent cycle of phase change materials).
However, Wagner teaches refreezing a phase change material after melting when the temperature outside of the facility space drops (“Cool outside air at a temperature of 15 ° C is by means of the air conveyor 20 sucked in and over the heater not in operation 33 at the heat storage 6 guided along. As a result, the storage material consisting of phase transition material solidifies”, pg. 5, sixth paragraph) for storing thermal energy (pg. 2, first paragraph). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to refreeze phase change material after melting when a temperature outside of a facility space drops, as taught by Wagner in the invention of Parker in order to advantageously store thermal energy (pg. 2, first paragraph), thereby reducing the energy consumption of the system.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. (WO 2011/075541) in view of Khanzadian (US 10,119,634).
Per claim 7, Parker meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Parker teaches the structural facility but fails to explicitly teach wherein the structural facility is retrofitted with the ductwork after initial facility use. However, Khanzadian teaches wherein a structural facility (“facilities”, col. 3, line 21) retrofitting with ductwork (110) after initial facility use (“retrofit existing residential, commercial, industrial or medical HVAC systems”, col. 5, lines 32-33 of ) for reducing the cost of maintaining the ducting system (col. 3, lines 28-29). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a structural facility that is retrofitted with ductwork after initial facility use, as taught by Khanzadian in the invention of Parker, in order to advantageously reduce the cost of maintaining the ducting system (col. 3, lines 28-29).
Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. (WO 2011/075541) in view of Alderman (US 2011/0120040).
Per claim 2, Parker meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Parker fails to explicitly teach reducing a mean temperature of the attic space and the vertical temperature gradient of the attic space with another phase change material blanket exposed to the attic space and positioned at one of a top surface of the ceiling, a wall of the facility and a roof of the facility.
However, Alderman teaches reducing a mean temperature of an attic space (275) and a vertical temperature gradient of the attic space (vertical space of 275) with a phase change material blanket (100) exposed to the attic space and positioned at a wall of a facility (170) for enhanced cooling (para. 0036). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to reduce a mean temperature of an attic space and a vertical temperature gradient of the attic space with a phase change material blanket exposed to the attic space and positioned at a wall of a facility, as taught by Alderman in the invention of Parker, in order to advantageously provide enhanced cooling (para. 0036).
Per claim 6, Parker meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 5. Further, Parker fails to explicitly teach wherein the substantially uniform melting of the phase change material is facilitated in part by one of a thermally conductive and a reflective layer in substantially air-free thermally conductive communication therewith.
However, Alderman teaches a temperature modulating blanket system wherein substantially uniform melting of a phase change material is facilitated in part by a thermally conductive layer (24) in substantially air-free, thermally conductive communication therewith (para. 0037) for avoiding the transfer of moisture into or out of the temperature modulating blanket (para. 0037). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a temperature modulating blanket system wherein substantially uniform melting of a phase change material is facilitated in part by a thermally conductive layer insubstantially air-free, thermally conductive communication therewith, as taught by Alderman in the invention of Parker in order to advantageously avoid the transfer of moisture into or out of the temperature modulating blanket (para. 0037).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. (WO 2011/075541) in view of Alderman (US 2011/0120040) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Schroeder (US 3,216,459).
Per claim 8, Parker, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 6. Further, Parker, as modified, teaches the phase change banket about the ductwork (see rejection of claim 1) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the phase change material blanket is retrofitted on the ductwork after use of the facility with flowing conditioned air.
However, Schroeder teaches an HVAC system wherein a temperature modulating blanket (80) is retrofitted on ductwork (94 and 95) after use of a facility with flowing conditioned air (“previously installed ducts”, col. 8, lines 66-68 of Schroeder) for maintaining good airflow characteristics through the ductwork (col. 2, lines 57-58 of Schroeder). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a temperature modulating blanket retrofitted on ductwork (94 and 95) after use of a facility with flowing conditioned air, as taught by Schroeder in the invention of Parker, as modified, in order to advantageously maintaining good airflow characteristics through the ductwork (col. 2, lines 57-58 of Schroeder).
When the Schroeder blanket being retrofitted on ductwork after use of the facility with the flowing conditioned air is combined with the phase change material blanket of Parker, as modified, the result is wherein the phase change material blanket is retrofitted on the ductwork after use of the facility with flowing conditioned air, as claimed.
Claim(s) 13-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. (WO 2011/075541) in view of Alderman (US 2011/0120040).
Per claim 13, Parker meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 9. Further, Parker fails to explicitly teach wherein the phase change material is facilitated in part by one of a thermally conductive and a reflective layer in substantially air-free thermally conductive communication therewith.
However, Alderman teaches a temperature modulating blanket system wherein a phase change material is facilitated in part by a thermally conductive layer (24) over a phase change material (PCM1; see figure 3) in substantially air-free, thermally conductive communication therewith (para. 0037) for avoiding the transfer of moisture into or out of the temperature modulating blanket (para. 0037). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a temperature modulating blanket system wherein a phase change material is facilitated in part by a thermally conductive layer over a phase change layer in substantially air-free, thermally conductive communication therewith, as taught by Alderman in the invention of Parker, in order to advantageously avoid the transfer of moisture into or out of the temperature modulating blanket (para. 0037).
Per claims 14 and 16, Parker meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 13. Further, Parker fails to explicitly teach wherein the one of the thermally conductive layer and the reflective layer are of a k value in excess of 0.15 (clam 14) and wherein the reflective layer is aluminum foil (claim 16).
However, Alderman teaches a temperature modulating blanket wherein a thermally conductive layer (24, “polyethylene”, para. 0037) and the reflective layer (25, “aluminum”, para. 0037) are of a k value in excess of 0.15 (claim 14) and wherein the reflective layer is aluminum foil (para. 0037) (claim 16) for avoiding the transfer of moisture into or out of the temperature modulating blanket (para. 0037). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a temperature modulating blanket wherein a layer is of a k value in excess of 0.15 (claim 14) and wherein the reflective layer is aluminum foil (claim 16), as taught by Alderman in the invention of Parker, in order to advantageously avoid the transfer of moisture into or out of the temperature modulating blanket (para. 0037).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. (WO 2011/075541) in view of Alderman (US 2011/0120040) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Zheng et al. (US 2017/0059080).
Per claim 15, Parker, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 13. Further, Parker, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the thermally conductive layer comprises one of a thermally conductive polymer and an adhesive tape.
However, Zheng teaches phase change system wherein a thermally conductive layer (16 and 17) comprises a thermally conductive polymer (17, “the first insulating layer 17 comprises a first polymer matrix”, para. 0042) and an adhesive tape (“layer 16 functions as an adhesive”, para. 0042) for securing the thermally conductive layer to a duct work (para. 0042). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a thermally conductive layer comprising a thermally conductive polymer and an adhesive tape, as taught by Zheng in the invention of Parker, as modified, in order to advantageously secure the thermally conductive layer to a duct work (para. 0042).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al. (WO 2011/075541) in view of Mills (US 4,949,902).
Per claim 18, Parker meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 17. Further, Parker teaches the elevated vertical temperature gradient (i.e. there is necessarily a temperature gradient in the attic because hot air rises) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the elevated vertical temperature gradient is in excess of 50°F.
However, Mills teaches that a structural facility has temperature gradients within an attic (“Those skilled in the art will understand all of the various factors that can affect the temperature distribution in the attic”, col. 2, lines 64-66) and that many factors determine the temperature gradient (col. 2, lines 64-66). Therefore the temperature gradient is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that as facility parameters are adjusted the temperature gradient of the attic will be adjusted. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. the structural facility and the attic were disclosed in the prior art by Parker, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable value of the temperature gradient by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a temperature gradient disclosed by Powers, being in excess of 50°F.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Stevens et al. (US 8,726,586) teaches a ducting system in a facility attic.
Alderman (US 2003/0167718) teaches a phase change material blanket for use in buildings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763