DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument:
When rejecting the features of claim 1, shown in the first and second annotated copy of FIG. 1 of Kappel, provided by the Office and reproduced below, the Office alleged that welds 60 of Kappel correspond to the first inflation-limiting member and the second inflation-limiting member, and that Kappel shows a support portion and an adjacent area. See Office Action, pp. 6- 7. The Applicant respectfully submits that Kappel fails to teach, disclose, or suggest at least that "the first plurality of inflation-limiting members are disposed within a support portion...wherein none of the first plurality of inflation-limiting members are disposed between the first inflation- limiting member and the third inflation-limiting member along the second line," as recited by amended independent claim 1. For at least the foregoing reasons, the Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 1 is patentable over Kappel. It follows that all claims dependent thereon are allowable for at least the same reasons, even without regard to the further patentable features recited therein. Favorable reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-14 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is respectfully requested.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments regarding the lack of teaching of the amendment which requires "the first plurality of inflation-limiting members are disposed within a support portion...wherein none of the first plurality of inflation-limiting members are disposed between the first inflation- limiting member and the third inflation-limiting member along the second line." The claims presented are open ended claims using the transitional phrase “comprising” (see MPEP 2111.03). Amended claim 1 requires a first plurality of inflation limiting members arranged in a jogged structure including: the first inflation-limiting member, a third inflation-limiting member, [….] and a fourth inflation limiting member.” The Examiner has provided a detailed explanation and annotated copies of Kappel which show three circled inflation limiting members which the Examiner considers the first, third and fourth inflation limiting members forming the claimed first plurality of inflation limiting members. Although there is an inflation limiting member shown positioned along the annotated second line, the Examiner does not consider this inflation limiting member to be part of the first plurality of inflation limiting members because of the format of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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) 1-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kappel (US Patent No. 5,640,727).
Regarding Claim 1: Kappel discloses an inflatable device comprising: a top sheet (inflatable blanket 10 of Kappel) comprising: a top sheet (upper sheet of material 50 of Kappel); a bottom sheet (lower sheet of material 80 of Kappel – Figs. 2A-3B) connected to the top sheet (Col. 2, lines 35-42 of Kappel – “Blanket 10, further comprises a lower sheet of material (not visible), and an upper sheet of material 50, which are sealed together around respective peripheral edges to form an inflatable cavity therebetween”), the bottom sheet cooperating with the top sheet to define a cavity to be inflated (Col. 2, lines 35-42 of Kappel – “Blanket 10, further comprises a lower sheet of material (not visible), and an upper sheet of material 50, which are sealed together around respective peripheral edges to form an inflatable cavity therebetween”); a first plurality of inflation-limiting members (the Examiner considers the first plurality of inflation limiting members to comprise the inflation limiting members surrounded by annotated circles and labeled 1, 3, 4 as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel) each formed by first connections between the top sheet and the bottom sheet (see Figs. 2A-3B of Kappel); a second plurality of inflation-limiting members (the Examiner considers the second plurality of inflation limiting members to comprise the inflation limiting members surrounded by squares as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel) each formed by second connections between the top sheet and the bottom sheet (see Figs. 2A-3B of Kappel); wherein the first plurality of inflation-limiting members are disposed within a support portion of the inflatable device (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel showing the support portion and first plurality of inflation-limiting members), the support portion configured to have a top surface that is raised higher (compare Figs. 2B and 3B of Kappel which shows the height of the surface of the inflatable device being higher with the larger spacing between welds 60) than an adjacent area of the inflatable device (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel showing the adjacent area labeled) contiguous with the support portion when the cavity is inflated (compare Figs. 2B and 3B of Kappel which shows the height of the surface of the inflatable device being higher with the larger spacing between welds 60); wherein the second plurality of inflation-limiting members are disposed within the adjacent area (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel showing the adjacent area and second plurality of inflation-limiting members being the inflation-limiting members of Kappel surrounded by annotated squares); wherein the adjacent area is contiguous with a first edge of the inflatable device (as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel); wherein a first inflation-limiting member (labeled 1 in annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel) of the first plurality of inflation-limiting members and a second inflation-limiting member (labeled 2 in annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel) of the second plurality of inflation- limiting members are disposed along a first line (annotated “1st line” in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel) that is orthogonal to the first edge and the second inflation-limiting member is disposed between the first edge and the first inflation- limiting member (as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel); wherein the first plurality of inflation-limiting members are arranged in a jogged structure (as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel – compare the annotated inflation-limiting members 1, 3, and 4) including: the first inflation-limiting member (labeled 1 in annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel), a third inflation-limiting member (labeled 3 in annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel), the third inflation-limiting member and the first inflation-limiting member being disposed along a second line parallel to the first edge (labeled “2nd line” in annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel), and a fourth inflation-limiting member (labeled 4 in annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel) offset from the second line and disposed along a third line perpendicular to the first edge (labeled “3nd line” in annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel), the fourth inflation-limiting member being disposed between the first inflation-limiting member and the third inflation-limiting member (as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel); and wherein none of the first plurality of inflation-limiting members are disposed between the first inflation-limiting member and the third inflation-limiting member along the second line (see the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel and note that the Examiner considers the first plurality of inflation limiting members to only be the circled inflation limiting members labeled 1, 3, and 4).
Examiner’s Note: Claims 3 and 9 seem to be claiming different arrangements of the same parts. Claim 3 requires the fifth inflation limiting member to be disposed along the first line and claim 9 requires the fifth inflation-limiting member to be disposed along the third line. Both the first and third lines must be perpendicular/orthogonal to the first edge so it is impossible for both claims to be true in the same embodiment. Therefore, the Examiner has provided two separate interpretations of Kappel as shown in the first and second versions of the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel.
Examiner’s Note: Note that the labeled 1st, 2nd, and 3rd lines are slightly offset in order to prevent the blocking of the inflation-limiting members in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel.
Examiner’s Note: The Applicant has defined a first plurality of inflation limiting members and a second plurality of inflation limiting members. The Applicant then also defines additional inflation limiting members which are not claimed to be part of the first or second plurality. For the purpose of clearly annotating which features the Examiner considers to be the defined inflation limiting members of Kappel, the Examiner provides the following key.
Each inflation limiting member of the first plurality of inflation limiting members is circled and numbered.
Each inflation limiting member of the second plurality of inflation limiting members is surrounded by a square and numbered if numbered in the claim.
Each inflation limiting member which is not part of the first or second plurality of inflation limiting members is surrounded by a triangle and numbered.
PNG
media_image1.png
878
657
media_image1.png
Greyscale
First Annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel for the first interpretation of Kappel in the rejection of Claims 1-7
PNG
media_image2.png
878
657
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Second Annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel for the second interpretation of Kappel in the rejection of Claim 1 (alternatively) and Claims 8-12.
Regarding Claim 2: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 1, further comprising: a fifth inflation-limiting member formed by third connections between the top sheet and the bottom sheet, wherein the second inflation-limiting member is disposed between the fifth inflation-limiting member and the first edge (as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel above).
Regarding Claim 3: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 2, wherein the first inflation- limiting member, the second inflation-limiting member, and the fifth inflation-limiting member are disposed along the first line and orthogonal with the first edge (as shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel above).
Regarding Claim 4: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 1, wherein a first distance between the first inflation-limiting member and the fourth inflation-limiting member is substantially equal to a second distance between the fourth inflation-limiting member and the third inflation-limiting member (compare the distance between the first and fourth inflation-limiting members to the distance between the fourth and third inflation limiting member in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel above).
Regarding Claim 5: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 4, wherein a third distance between the fourth inflation-limiting member and the second inflation-limiting member is different than the first distance (compare the distance between the fourth and second inflation limiting member in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel above with the first distance described in the rejection of claim 4 above).
Regarding Claim 6: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 2, further comprising: a sixth inflation-limiting member formed by fourth connections between the top sheet and the bottom sheet, wherein the sixth inflation-limiting member is disposed within the adjacent area (see the inflation limiting member surrounded by a triangle and labeled with a 6 in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel).
Regarding Claim 7: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 6, wherein a first distance between the first inflation-limiting member and the fifth inflation-limiting member is different than a second distance between the second inflation-limiting member and the sixth inflation-limiting member (compare the distance between the annotated first and fifth inflation-limiting members with the annotated second and sixth inflation-limiting members shown in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel).
Regarding Claim 8: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 1, further comprising: a fifth inflation-limiting member formed by third connections between the top sheet and the bottom sheet, wherein the fifth inflation-limiting member is disposed within the support portion; and a sixth inflation-limiting member formed by fourth connections between the top sheet and the bottom sheet, wherein the sixth inflation-limiting member is disposed within the adjacent area; wherein the sixth inflation-limiting member is disposed between the first edge and the fifth inflation-limiting member (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel which shows the fifth inflation limiting member labeled 5 and the sixth inflation limiting member labeled 6).
Regarding Claim 9: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 8, wherein the fifth inflation-limiting member and the sixth inflation-limiting member are disposed along the third line (see the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel which shows the fifth and fourth inflation-limiting members disposed along a 3rd line as annotated).
Regarding Claim 10: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 9, wherein the first line and the third line are parallel (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel showing first and third lines being parallel).
Regarding Claim 11: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 8, further comprising a seventh inflation-limiting member (annotated number 7 in the annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel) formed by fifth connections between the top sheet and the bottom sheet (Figs. 2B and 3B of Kappel), wherein the fifth inflation-limiting member and the sixth inflation-limiting member are disposed between the seventh inflation-limiting member and the first edge (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel).
Regarding Claim 12: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 11, wherein the seventh inflation-limiting member and the third inflation-limiting member are disposed along a fourth line perpendicular to the first edge (see annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel which shows a fourth line annotated “4th line”).
Regarding Claim 13: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 1, further comprising a seam connecting the top sheet and the bottom sheet at the first edge (Col. 2, lines 36-39 of Kappel - “Blanket 10, further comprises a lower sheet of material (not visible), and an upper sheet of material 50, which are sealed together around respective peripheral edges to form an inflatable cavity therebetween”), wherein the second inflation-limiting member is spaced apart from the seam (see first and second annotated copies of Fig. 1 of Kappel showing the second inflation-limiting member being offset from the peripheral first edge).
Regarding Claim 14: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 13, wherein the top sheet is raised a first distance at the seam (not shown but Kappel describes sealing the upper and lower sheets of material together around peripheral edges which would create a first height of the upper sheet relative to the lower sheet) and a second distance at the adjacent area (see first and second annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel and Fig. 3B showing an inflated side view of the blanket), wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance (see the height of the upper sheet in Fig. 3B of Kappel and note that the sealing of two sheets together will result in a lower height than the raised area shown in Fig. 3B).
Regarding Claim 18: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 1, wherein a first region at the first inflation-limiting member and a second region at the second inflation-limiting member are configured to inflate at different rates (the larger spacing between welds 60 in the annotated support portion compared to the smaller spacing between welds 60 in the annotated adjacent area would cause different rates of inflation in the respective areas – see the first and second annotated copy of Fig. 1 of Kappel).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappel (US Patent No. 5,640,727) in view of Ragan et al. (US Patent No. 5,125,238 – hereinafter Ragan).
Regarding Claim 16: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the top sheet includes a high-friction portion including a material having higher friction than at least a portion of the bottom sheet.
However, in the same field of endeavor, inflatable products (see the abstract of Ragan), Ragan teaches wherein the top sheet includes a high-friction portion including a material having higher friction than at least a portion of the bottom sheet (fibrous layer 16 as described in Col. 3, lines 18-21 of Ragan – “This fibrous layer 16 provides a comfortable surface in contact with the patient and its high frictional characteristic helps keep the blanket in place on the patient.”).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner considers surface 16 to be the top sheet of Ragan and notes that because Ragan adds a high frictional material to the flexible sheet 14 for the purpose of keeping the blanket on the patient, the Examiner considers the surface 12, which is formed of the same material as sheet 14, to have a lower friction than the surface 16.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Kappel (directed to an inflatable device) and Ragan (directed to an inflatable device with additional fibrous layer) with a reasonable expectation of success and arrived at an inflatable product with regions of varying heights and a fibrous layer. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because the fibrous layer “provides a comfortable surface in contact with the patient and its high frictional characteristic helps keep the blanket in place on the patient” (Col. 3, lines 18-21 of Ragan).
Regarding Claim 17: Kappel in view of Ragan make obvious the inflatable device of claim 16, wherein the high-friction portion is disposed within the support portion (via the bonding of fibrous layer 16 to the lower side of the sheet 14 of Ragan as applied to Kappel).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappel (US Patent No. 5,640,727) in view of Reiners et al. (US Patent No. 9,554,956 – hereinafter Reiners).
Regarding Claim 19: Kappel discloses the inflatable device of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising a plurality of handles, wherein the plurality of handles includes at least 8 handles, wherein a first subset of the plurality of handles is positioned along the first edge of the inflatable device and a second subset of the plurality of handles is positioned along a second edge of the inflatable device, the second edge contiguous with the first edge.
However, in the same field of endeavor, inflatable devices (see the abstract of Reiners), Reiners teaches further comprising a plurality of handles (handles 30 of Reiners), wherein the plurality of handles includes at least 8 handles (see 10 handles shown in Fig. 5 of Reiners), wherein a first subset of the plurality of handles is positioned along the first edge of the inflatable device and a second subset of the plurality of handles is positioned along a second edge of the inflatable device (see handles placed on each side of Reiners), the second edge contiguous with the first edge (see contiguous edges of Reiners including a subset of handles).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine Kappel (directed toward an inflatable device) and Reiners (directed toward an inflatable device with handles) with a reasonable expectation of success and arrived at an inflatable device with areas of varying height and handles for aid in shifting a person. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because handles enable transport/repositing of the device relative to the person or the support and the variety of handles enable shifting from different areas (Col. 4, lines 7-10 of Reiners).
Regarding Claim 20: Kappel in view of Reiners make obvious the inflatable device of claim 19, wherein the second edge is contiguous with the support portion (see contiguous edges of Reiners including a subset of handles).
Claim(s) 1 (alternatively) and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kappel (US Patent No. 5,640,727) in view of Bosc (FR 1,259,308).
Regarding Claim 1: Bosc discloses an inflatable device (see the abstract of Bosc) comprising: a top sheet (see annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Bosc); a bottom sheet connected to the top sheet (see annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Bosc); the bottom sheet cooperating with the top sheet to define a cavity to be inflated (as described in the abstract of Bosc); [….] a support portion (see annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Bosc) [….], an adjacent area (see annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Bosc) [….] the support portion configured to have a top surface that is raised higher than an adjacent area of the inflatable device contiguous with the support portion when the cavity is inflated (see annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Bosc); […] wherein the adjacent area is contiguous with a first edge of the inflatable device (see annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Bosc); [….].
PNG
media_image3.png
383
493
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bosc does not disclose a first plurality of inflation-limiting members each formed by first connections between the top sheet and the bottom sheet; a second plurality of inflation-limiting members each formed by second connections between the top sheet and the bottom sheet; wherein the first plurality of inflation-limiting members are disposed within a support portion of the inflatable device, the support portion configured to have a top surface that is raised higher than an adjacent area of the inflatable device contiguous with the support portion when the cavity is inflated; wherein the second plurality of inflation-limiting members are disposed within the adjacent area; wherein the adjacent area is contiguous with a first edge of the inflatable device; wherein the a first inflation-limiting member of the first plurality of inflation- limiting members and a second inflation-limiting member of the second plurality of inflation- limiting members are disposed along a first line that is orthogonal to the first edge and the second inflation-limiting member is disposed between the first edge and the first inflation- limiting member; wherein the first plurality of inflation-limiting members are arranged in a jogged structure including: the first inflation-limiting member, a third inflation-limiting member, the third inflation-limiting member and the first inflation-limiting member being disposed along a second line parallel to the first edge, and a fourth inflation-limiting member offset from the second line and disposed along a third line perpendicular to the first edge, the fourth inflation-limiting member being disposed between the first inflation-limiting member and the third inflation-limiting member; and wherein none of the first plurality of inflation-limiting members are disposed between the first inflation-limiting member and the third inflation-limiting member along the second line.
In the same field of endeavor, inflatable devices (see the abstract of Kappel), Kappel discloses each of the features of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kappel (US Patent No. 5,640,727)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined Bosc (directed to an inflatable support) and Kappel (directed to an inflatable device with inflation limitation members to form contours) and arrived at an inflatable device formed with one inflatable cavity with contours formed by inflation limitation members. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g. forming contoured areas in an inflatable product by varying the distance between welds) with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g. a comfort product can be formed and inflated by one port while still including areas of different heights.
Regarding Claim 15: Bosc in view of Kappel make obvious the inflatable device of claim 1, wherein the support portion is a head support portion (see the annotated copy of Fig. 2 of Bosc).
Examiner’s Note: Currently the Examiner only relies on the combination of Bosc and Kappel for the rejection of claim 15 and claim 1 alternatively. It would be reasonable and obvious to reject any of the other dependent claims with this combination as well but for the purpose of compact prosecution and presenting a clear rejection, the Examiner has not outlined the additional alternative rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 10,499,755 to Aramli is cited for teaching a covering with airflow and inflation limiting members.
US Patent No. 5,265,599 to Stephenson et al. is cited for teaching a covering with inflation limiting members positioned in a jogged pattern.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA L BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/AMANDA L BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights