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
Applicant’s reply filed June 11, 2026 is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-20 remain pending and are addressed below.
Drawings
The drawings remain objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature wherein “the valve is biased into the first position”, as recited in claim 16, 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.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimers filed on June 11, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,964,176, 12/330,002, and any patent granted on Application No. 18/799,949, has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the “wherein” clause on the last two lines of the claim regarding the valve moving from the open position to the closed position “when the sensor detects... the pressure level in the pipe insert” is unclear and indefinite. The recitation, “the pressure level in the pipe insert”, finds antecedent basis to “a pressure level in the pipe insert”, recited on lines 14-15 of the claim; and in that recitation, it can be assumed that the “sensor” detects any and all pressure levels in the pipe insert that are within a range of undefined pressure levels, which could be virtually infinite. Thus, when reading the last two lines of claim 1, the claim can be interpreted in a manner whereby the valve moves from the open position to the closed position at any and all pressure levels in the pipe insert detected by the “sensor”, which is both confusing and not consistent with the specification, as such an arrangement would essentially never allow fluid to flow through the insert, rendering the claimed “device” inoperable. It should be noted that this issue was essentially raised in paragraph 4 of the Office action mailed February 11, 2026. However, Applicant’s reply filed June 11, 2026 did not distinctly address or otherwise obviate this issue.
Regarding claim 2, it is noted that the last line of the claim again refers to “the pressure level in the pipe insert”, and thus this claim is unclear for the same reason(s) discussed above with respect to claim 1. It should be noted that this issue was essentially raised in paragraph 4 of the Office action mailed February 11, 2026. However, Applicant’s reply filed June 11, 2026 did not distinctly address or otherwise obviate this issue.
Regarding claim 8, the “wherein” clause on the last two lines of the claim regarding the valve moving from the open position to the closed position “when the sensor detects... the pressure level in the pipe insert” is unclear and indefinite. The recitation, “the pressure level in the pipe insert”, finds antecedent basis to “a pressure level in the pipe insert”, recited on lines 13-14 of the claim; and in that recitation, it can be assumed that the “sensor” detects any and all pressure levels in the pipe insert that are within a range of undefined pressure levels, which could be virtually infinite. Thus, when reading the last two lines of claim 8, the claim can be interpreted in a manner whereby the valve moves from the open position to the closed position at any and all pressure levels in the pipe insert detected by the “sensor”, which is both confusing and not consistent with the specification, as such an arrangement would essentially never allow fluid to flow through the insert, rendering the claimed “device” inoperable. It should be noted that this issue was essentially raised in paragraph 4 of the Office action mailed February 11, 2026. However, Applicant’s reply filed June 11, 2026 did not distinctly address or otherwise obviate this issue.
Regarding claim 9, it is noted that the last line of the claim again refers to “the pressure level in the pipe insert”, and thus this claim is unclear for the same reason(s) discussed above with respect to claim 8. It should be noted that this issue was essentially raised in paragraph 4 of the Office action mailed February 11, 2026. However, Applicant’s reply filed June 11, 2026 did not distinctly address or otherwise obviate this issue.
Regarding claim 15, the “wherein” clause on the last two lines of the claim regarding the valve moving from the first position to the second position “when the sensor detects... the pressure level in the pipe system” is unclear and indefinite. The recitation, “the pressure level in the pipe system”, finds antecedent basis to “a pressure level in the pipe system” recited on line 13 of the claim; and in that recitation, it can be assumed that the “sensor” detects any and all pressure levels in the pipe system that are within a range of undefined pressure levels, which could be virtually infinite. Thus, when reading the last two lines of claim 15, the claim can be interpreted in a manner whereby the valve moves from the first position to the second position at any and all pressure levels in the pipe system detected by the “sensor”, which is both confusing and not consistent with the specification, as such an arrangement would essentially never allow fluid to flow through the insert, rendering the claimed “device” inoperable. It should be noted that this issue was essentially raised in paragraph 4 of the Office action mailed February 11, 2026. However, Applicant’s reply filed June 11, 2026 did not distinctly address or otherwise obviate this issue.
Regarding claim 17, it is noted that the last two lines of the claim again refers to “the pressure level in the pipe system”, and thus this claim is unclear for the same reason(s) discussed above with respect to claim 15. It should be noted that this issue was essentially raised in paragraph 4 of the Office action mailed February 11, 2026. However, Applicant’s reply filed June 11, 2026 did not distinctly address or otherwise obviate this issue.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seo et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0017577.
As to claim 1, Seo shows (see Fig. 1) and describes a protective device comprising: a pipe insert (100; and note that Seo expressly states “housing 101” of device “100” is “placed in a pipe” between upstream and downstream portions of the pipe, and supports “all components”, thus making “100” a pipe insert; see paragraph [0030]) disposed within a fire control system (see paragraphs [0002]-[0007], which implicitly and/or expressly discloses incorporation of the insert in a fire control system) between upstream and downstream ends of the fire control system; a valve (see discussion of “valve seat 102” in paragraphs [0030]-[0033] and [0044]-[0046]) within the pipe insert (see again, Fig. 1), the valve moveable between open and closed positions, wherein the open position opens the pipe insert, enabling transmission of a flow of fluid through the pipe insert, and the closed position occludes the pipe insert, disabling transmission of the flow of the fluid through the pipe insert to the downstream end of the fire control system; and a sensor (105) for disposition within the flow of the fluid to detect one of a target compound in the pipe insert and a pressure level of the fluid in the pipe insert; wherein the valve moves from the open position to the closed position when the sensor detects the one of the target compound and a particular pressure level of the fluid in the pipe insert (see paragraph [0046]). As to the preamble recitation, of the claimed device being a “protective device for preventing tampering with a fire control system in a building, the fire control system for transmission of a flow of a fluid from an upstream end of the fire control system to a downstream end of the fire control system at sprinklers within the building”, such is afforded, at best, limited patentable weight, because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). However, it should also be noted that Seo implicitly and/or expressly discloses advantageous implementation of the protective device into water-based fire control systems having sprinklers in buildings (see, at least paragraphs [0002]-[0007]).
As to claim 3, as noted above, Seo implicitly and/or expressly discloses advantageous implementation of the protective device into water-based fire control systems having sprinklers in buildings (see, at least paragraphs [0002]-[0007]), including (at least) “high-rise buildings”, which implies that an upstream portion of the fire control system would be coupled to a local water supply.
As to claim 4, as noted above, Seo implicitly and/or expressly discloses advantageous implementation of the protective device into water-based fire control systems having sprinklers in buildings (see, at least paragraphs [0002]-[0007]), including (at least) “high-rise buildings”, which implies that an upstream portion of the fire control system would be coupled to a fire department connection, which Applicant expressly states in paragraph [0007] of the instant application is required by building codes.
As to claim 8, Seo shows (see Fig. 1) and describes a protective device comprising: a pipe insert (100; and note that Seo expressly states “housing 101” of device “100” is “placed in a pipe” between upstream and downstream portions of the pipe, and supports “all components”, thus making “100” a pipe insert; see paragraph [0030]) disposed within a pipe system between upstream and downstream ends of the pipe system; a valve (see discussion of “valve seat 102” in paragraphs [0030]-[0033] and [0044]-[0046]) within the pipe insert (see again, Fig. 1), the valve moveable between open and closed positions, wherein the open position opens the pipe insert, enabling transmission of a flow of fluid through the pipe insert, and the closed position occludes the pipe insert, disabling transmission of the flow of the fluid through the pipe insert; and a sensor (105) within the pipe insert for disposition within the flow of the fluid to detect one of a target compound and a pressure level in the pipe insert; wherein the valve moves from the open position to the closed position when the sensor detects the one of the target compound and a particular pressure level in the pipe insert (see paragraph [0046]). As to the preamble recitation, of the claimed device being a “protective device for preventing tampering with a pipe system in a building, the pipe system for transmission of a flow of a fluid from an upstream end of the pipe system to a downstream end of the pipe system”, such is afforded, at best, limited patentable weight, because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). However, it should also be noted that Seo implicitly and/or expressly discloses advantageous implementation of the protective device into water-based pipe systems, including (at least) water-based fire control systems in buildings (see, at least paragraphs [0002]-[0007]).
As to claim 10, as noted above, Seo implicitly and/or expressly discloses advantageous implementation of the protective device into water-based pipe systems, including (at least) fire control systems in buildings (see, at least paragraphs [0002]-[0007]), including (at least) “high-rise buildings”, which implies that an upstream portion of such a fire control system would be coupled to a local water supply.
As to claim 11, as noted above, Seo implicitly and/or expressly discloses advantageous implementation of the protective device into water-based pipe systems, including (at least) fire control systems in buildings (see, at least paragraphs [0002]-[0007]), including (at least) “high-rise buildings”, which implies that an upstream portion of such a fire control system would be coupled to a fire department connection, which Applicant expressly states in paragraph [0007] of the instant application is required by building codes.
As to claim 15, Seo shows (see Fig. 1) and describes a protective device comprising: a pipe insert (100; and note that Seo expressly states “housing 101” of device “100” is “placed in a pipe” between upstream and downstream portions of the pipe, and supports “all components”, thus making “100” a pipe insert; see paragraph [0030]) disposed within a pipe system between upstream and downstream ends of the pipe system; a valve (see discussion of “valve seat 102” in paragraphs [0030]-[0033] and [0044]-[0046]) within the pipe insert (see again, Fig. 1), the valve moveable between first and second positions, wherein the first position enables transmission of a flow of fluid through the pipe insert, and the second position disables transmission of the flow of the fluid through the pipe insert; and a sensor (105) for disposition within the flow of the fluid to detect one of a target compound in the pipe insert and a pressure level in the pipe system; wherein the valve moves from the first position to the second position when the sensor detects the one of the target compound and a particular pressure level in the pipe system (see paragraph [0046]). As to the preamble recitation, of the claimed device being a “protective device for preventing tampering with a pipe system in a building, the pipe system for transmission of a flow of a fluid from an upstream end of the pipe system to a downstream end of the pipe system”, such is afforded, at best, limited patentable weight, because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). However, it should also be noted that Seo implicitly and/or expressly discloses advantageous implementation of the protective device into water-based pipe systems, including (at least) water-based fire control systems in buildings (see, at least paragraphs [0002]-[0007]).
Claims 8, 9 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al., KR 20210026501 A (see the English-language translation of Cho et al. for specifically cited locations within the written description thereof, as discussed below).
As to claim 8, Cho shows (see Figs. 1-4) and describes a protective device comprising: a pipe insert (10) disposed within a pipe system (P, P’) between upstream and downstream ends of the pipe system; a valve (200, 300) within the pipe insert (see again, Figs. 1-4), the valve moveable between open (see Figs. 1 and 3) and closed positions (see Figs. 2 and 4), wherein the open position opens the pipe insert, enabling transmission of a flow of fluid (W) through the pipe insert, and the closed position occludes the pipe insert, disabling transmission of the flow of the fluid through the pipe insert; and a sensor (400 in Figs. 1 and 2; and 410, 420 in Figs. 3 and 4) within the pipe insert for disposition within the flow of the fluid to detect one of a target compound and a pressure level in the pipe insert (see the sixth paragraph on page 3; and see the fourth and fifth paragraphs on page 4); wherein the valve moves from the open position to the closed position when the sensor detects the one of the target compound and a particular pressure level in the pipe insert (see the seventh paragraph on page 3; and see the sixth paragraph on page 4; and see the fourth paragraph on page 5). As to the preamble recitation, of the claimed device being a “protective device for preventing tampering with a pipe system in a building, the pipe system for transmission of a flow of a fluid from an upstream end of the pipe system to a downstream end of the pipe system”, such is afforded, at best, limited patentable weight, because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). However, it should also be noted that Cho implicitly and/or expressly discloses advantageous implementation of the protective device into fluid-conveying pipe systems, including (at least) those which would be in buildings (see the first paragraph on page 2).
As to claim 9, the protective device of Cho, as shown in Figs. 3 and 4, includes a first sensor (410) upstream from the valve and a second sensor (420) downstream from the valve, wherein the valve moves from the open position to the closed position in response to either of the first or second sensors detecting the one of the target compound and the particular pressure level in the pipe insert.
As to claim 15, Cho shows (see Figs. 1-4) and describes a protective device comprising: a pipe insert (10) disposed within a pipe system (P, P’) between upstream and downstream ends of the pipe system; a valve (200, 300) within the pipe insert (see again, Figs. 1-4), the valve moveable between first (see Figs. 1 and 3) and second positions (see Figs. 2 and 4), wherein the first position enables transmission of a flow of fluid (W) through the pipe insert, and the second position disables transmission of the flow of the fluid through the pipe insert; and a sensor (400 in Figs. 1 and 2; and 410, 420 in Figs. 3 and 4) for disposition within the flow of the fluid to detect one of a target compound in the pipe insert and a pressure level in the pipe system (see the sixth paragraph on page 3; and see the fourth and fifth paragraphs on page 4); wherein the valve moves from the first position to the second position when the sensor detects the one of the target compound and a particular pressure level in the pipe system (see the seventh paragraph on page 3; and see the sixth paragraph on page 4; and see the fourth paragraph on page 5). As to the preamble recitation, of the claimed device being a “protective device for preventing tampering with a pipe system in a building, the pipe system for transmission of a flow of a fluid from an upstream end of the pipe system to a downstream end of the pipe system”, such is afforded, at best, limited patentable weight, because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). However, it should also be noted that Cho implicitly and/or expressly discloses advantageous implementation of the protective device into fluid-conveying pipe systems, including (at least) those which would be in buildings (see the first paragraph on page 2).
As to claim 16, portion “200” of the valve shown by Cho is described as being an “elastic member”, and thus it is reasonable to expect that the valve exhibits an amount of bias into the first position.
As to claim 17, the protective device of Cho, as shown in Figs. 3 and 4, includes a first sensor (410) upstream from the valve and a second sensor (420) downstream from the valve, wherein the valve moves from the open position to the closed position in response to either of the first or second sensors detecting the one of the target compound and the particular pressure level in the pipe system.
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 2, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al., in view of Cho et al.
Regarding each of claims 2, 9 and 17, Seo shows all of the recited limitations as set forth in claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively. However, Seo shows and describes a single sensor, and is thus silent as to the sensor including a first sensor upstream from the valve and a second sensor downstream from the valve, wherein the valve moves from the open position to the closed position in response to either of the first or second sensors detecting the one of the target compound and the pressure level in the pipe insert (regarding claims 2 and 9) or in the pipe system (regarding claim 17).
Cho (see Figs. 1-4) shows a protective device for a fluid-conveying pipe system having a similar design, function and effect as that of Seo; and Cho shows two different embodiments of the protective device, wherein a first thereof (see Figs. 1 and 2) includes a single pressure sensor (400), and wherein a second thereof (see Figs. 3 and 4) includes a first pressure sensor (410) upstream from the corresponding valve and a second pressure sensor (420) downstream from the corresponding valve. Cho expressly states that whether a pressure sensor is installed on one side, the other side, or both sides of the corresponding valve essentially matters very little, as in any instance, the pressure may be “quickly and accurately identified” (see the first paragraph on page 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the sensor of Seo, to include a first sensor upstream from the valve and a second sensor downstream from the valve, as functionally-equivalently taught by Cho, since including first and second sensors in the manner taught by Cho will still quickly and accurately identify fluid pressure flowing through the device, as similarly required by the Seo system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 12-14 and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see the section under “II. Drawing Objections” on pages 8-9 of the “Remarks” portion of the response filed June 11, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant essentially argues that the objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a), as set forth in paragraph 2 of the Office action mailed February 11, 2026, should be withdrawn, essentially because Applicant believes that the limitation recited in claim 16 is “easily understood by one having ordinary skill in the art”, and that “the description, together with the drawings, is sufficient for one having ordinary skill in the art to understand the claim”. It is respectfully submitted that it is not necessarily easy to understand how such a “torsional or other spring” (as described in the specification) is embodied into the depiction of the valve(s) shown in the originally filed drawings, such that it biases the valve into the first/open position. Also, as to Applicant’s argument that inclusion of this feature is “difficult if not impossible to show”, this Office does not agree. The disclosed and shown system is a mechanical type of system, which is reflected by the positively-recited limitations of the claim scope, and which necessarily requires depiction of every feature of the invention specified in the claims (as required by 37 CFR 1.83(a)), not only for complete understanding of the claimed invention by this Office, but for understanding of the invention by the public, if/when the instant application matures into a published patent; and it is most certainly not impossible or near impossible to depict a biased valve element. The objection is therefore maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see the section under “III. Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112” on page 9 of the “Remarks” portion of the response filed June 11, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the aforementioned arguments section, Applicant verbally addresses the amendments to claims 1, 8 and 15 with respect to only the first raised issue regarding claim 1 (as set forth in paragraph 4 of the Office action mailed February 11, 2026). Thus, Applicant has not specifically addressed or otherwise obviated the “Further, regarding claim 1” issue, or the “Regarding claim 8” issue, or the “Regarding claim 15” issue, as set forth in paragraph 4 of the aforementioned Office action. The rejections are therefore maintained.
Applicant's arguments, see the sections under “V. Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102” and “VI. Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103” on pages 10 and 11, respectively, of the “Remarks” portion of the response filed June 11, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the aforementioned arguments sections, Applicant simply states that the prior art rejections have been overcome by amendments to each of claims 1, 8 and 15, “to incorporate the claim 5 subject matter which Examiner has indicated as allowable”. However, it is respectfully submitted that no such amendments have actually been made to the pending claims. The rejections are therefore maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Foreign Patent Publications to Bittner et al. and Richter are cited as of interest.
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 DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights