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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 April 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 09 April 2026 and 10 April 2026 have been entered. Claims 21-29 and 31-40 remain pending in the application (claims 1-20 and 30 have been cancelled). The Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome each and every objection and rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection dated 30 January 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-4, filed 09 April 2026 and page 1 filed 10 April 2026, with respect to the rejections of newly amended claims 21 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103, Kikuchi in view of Stein and Kikuchi in view of Stein and Rohbeck respectively.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-22 31-32, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. (USPGPub 20150301221 A1) in view of Stein et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9910186 B2).
Regarding claim 21, Kikuchi teaches a method for monitoring a protective field on an installation, wherein: the protective field is formed by a light grid (LC), and the light grid (LC) is produced by a plurality of light beams which lie in one plane and are transmitted from a transmitting device (1) to a receiving device (2) arranged opposite (see figures 1 and 14, light projecting device 1 and light receiving device 2; and ¶42, The plurality of light emitting elements 11 and the plurality of light receiving elements 21 are positioned in a one-to-one relationship. Therefore, it is possible to set up a two-dimensional detection area LC formed by a plurality of optical axes), the light grid (LC) has a control unit (6) for receiving and processing signals from the transmitting and/or receiving device (1/2) (see figure 4, controller 6; and ¶59, The communication circuits 17, 27 are communication interfaces compatible to RS485, and control transmissions of signals between the light projecting device 1 and the light receiving device 2, signals between the controller 6 and the light projecting device 1, and signals between the controller 6 and the light receiving device 2. The aggregated detection result is output to the controller 6 by way of the communication circuit 27), wherein when an object (W) enters the protective field, a division of the protective field is carried out wherein the protective field is divided into a first region, a second region (PM), and a tolerance region (M1/M2) (see figure 14, first region (unlabeled) residing outside of the muted areas of the light curtain LC, the muting area PM (i.e. second region), and allowance ranges M1 and M2 (i.e. tolerance region)), wherein the second region (PM) is defined by all light beams interrupted by the object (W) (see figure 14; ¶115, While the workpiece W passes through the detection area LC, the area of light blocked by the workpiece W is acquired. Optical axes 11_U, 11_D corresponding to both edges of the area are determined by the multiple optical axis photoelectric sensor SNS. The area between the optical axes 11_U, 11_D is set as the altered muting area PM (second range); and see ¶120 for additional details), wherein the tolerance region (M1/M2) is disposed on each of the two opposite sides of the second region (PM), wherein if free neighboring light beams are present on the respective side of the second region (PM), the tolerance region (M1/M2) on that side of the second region (PM) includes neighboring free light beams (see figure 14; ¶117, One or both of an allowance range M1 and an allowance range M2 may be added outside of the muting area PM as a muting range continuous to the muting area PM, as required. The allowance range M1 is an additional range above the muting area PM. The allowance range M2 is an additional range below the muting area PM; and see ¶120 for further details), and remaining free light beams form the first region (see figure 14, first region (unlabeled) residing outside of the muted areas of the light curtain LC), wherein light beams in the tolerance region (M1/M2) are ignored and no shutdown signal is generated (¶118, With the addition of one or both of the allowance range M1 and the allowance range M2 in the muting area PM, it is possible to set up a muting area for allowing the vibration of the workpiece W; see ¶128 for further details; and abstract, a muting area for nullifying the result of detection of blocked light is set up), and a shutdown signal is generated when a light beam is interrupted in the first region (¶48, When receiving the signal indicating the state “detection” from the multiple optical axis photoelectric sensor, the power source supply circuit of the machine stops the power supply to the machine in order to transfer the machine to a state in which safety is assured; and see ¶¶47-48 for further details). However, Kikuchi fails to explicitly teach wherein the second region is defined by all light beams interrupted by the object with the exception of at least one outermost light beam of the light beams interrupted by the object on a side of the second region, wherein the tolerance region further includes the at least one outermost light beam interrupted by the object in addition to the free neighboring light beams present on the side of the second region, and wherein the number of interrupted light beams in the second region is checked as long as the object is located in the protective field; and a shutdown signal is generated when not all light beams in the protective field are free after a predefined first period of time after release of an interrupted light beam in the second region.
However, Stein teaches wherein the second region is defined by all light beams interrupted by the object (1002) with the exception of at least one outermost light beam of the light beams interrupted by the object (1002) on a side of the second region (see figure 10; and col. 14, lines 2-6, the tolerance band comprises the Nth beam (the highest beam interrupted by the front edge of the product 1002), the beam immediately below the Nth beam, and the beam immediately above the Nth beam), wherein the tolerance region further includes the at least one outermost light beam interrupted by the object (1002) in addition to the free neighboring light beams are present on the side of the second region (see figure 10; and col. 14, lines 2-6, the tolerance band comprises the Nth beam (the highest beam interrupted by the front edge of the product 1002), the beam immediately below the Nth beam, and the beam immediately above the Nth beam), and wherein the number of interrupted light beams in the second region is checked as long as the object (1002) is located in the protective field (108); and a shutdown signal is generated when not all light beams in the protective field are free after a predefined first period of time after release of an interrupted light beam in the second region (col. 14, lines 35-50, The muting control component 506 continues to monitor the beams in order to determine if one or both of the two unsafe conditions has occurred. The first unsafe condition—interruption of a non-muted beam above the set muting height—suggests that a second object (e.g., a human operator) is riding on top of the product, or walking along side of the product, as the product traverses through the protective field. The second unsafe condition—non-interruption of a monitored muted beam below the set muting height—suggests that the object passing through the light curtain is not the expected box shape, and therefore is not a valid product. At time T7, the muting control component 506 determines that one or both of these two unsafe conditions have occurred. In response to detecting this condition, muting control component 506 instructs output component 510 to initiate safety mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kikuchi to incorporate the teachings of Stein to have the second region exclude the outer most beams in order to account for the potential movement/vibration of the object without stopping the entire system or causing unnecessary readjustments of the muting zone. Additionally, it would have been obvious to monitor the interrupted beams of the second region in order to determine whether an object passing through the light grid is the expected object or not, thereby preventing an unexpected object from passing into the danger zone of the assembly.
Regarding claim 22, Kikuchi as modified by Stein teaches the method according to claim 21, wherein when the object (Kikuchi W | Stein 1002) enters the protective field (Kikuchi LC | Stein 108) after interruption of a light beam and expiry of a predefined second period of time, the protective field (Kikuchi LC | Stein 108) is divided into the first region, the second region (Kikuchi PM), and the tolerance region (Kikuchi M1/M2) (Kikuchi, ¶54, the multiple optical axis photoelectric sensor SNS examines the range of optical axes whose light is blocked by workpieces or pallets over a certain period of time. The range of optical axes whose light is blocked is referred to as “light blocking area”. The multiple optical axis photoelectric sensor SNS sets up the muting area on the basis of the light blocking area; and see remainder of ¶54 for further details; and Stein, see figure 8, light curtain interrupted at time T2 and the muting height (i.e. regions) are set just after time T3; and col. 13, lines 48-51, when the front edge of product 1002 first enters the protective field, the Nth beam from the lower most beam is detected as the highest interrupted beam. The tolerance value is configured to be ±X beams, where X is an integer).
Regarding claim 31, Kikuchi as modified by Stein teaches the method according to claim 21, wherein the tolerance region (Kikuchi M1/M2) is formed from a total of up to twelve light beams (Kikuchi, ¶120, the dimensions of the allowance ranges M1, M2 are not necessarily limited to invariable ones, but may be variable. For example, at least one of the allowance range M1 and the allowance range M2 may be altered according to the extent of the vibration of the workpiece W; and Stein, see figure 10, at least 3 beams are part of the tolerance region; and col. 13, lines 49-53, the Nth beam from the lower most beam is detected as the highest interrupted beam. The tolerance value is configured to be ±X beams, where X is an integer. In some embodiments, the light curtain controller allows the user to set the tolerance value X as desired).
Regarding claim 32, Kikuchi as modified by Stein teaches the method according to claim 21, wherein two light grids (Kikuchi LC | Stein 108) are used and their protective fields lie on the plane (Kikuchi, see figure 17; and ¶137, As shown in FIG. 17, it is possible to form a combined detection area by disposing (connecting, for example) a plurality (three in FIG. 17, but the number is not limited to three) of the light projecting devices 1 of the multiple optical axis photoelectric sensor SNS in series while disposing (connecting, for example) a plurality of the light receiving devices 2 in series).
Regarding claim 34, Kikuchi as modified by Stein teaches the method according to claim 21, wherein two or more light grids (Kikuchi LC | Stein 108) are provided which are arranged parallel to one another (Kikuchi, see figure 17; and ¶137, As shown in FIG. 17, it is possible to form a combined detection area by disposing (connecting, for example) a plurality (three in FIG. 17, but the number is not limited to three) of the light projecting devices 1 of the multiple optical axis photoelectric sensor SNS in series while disposing (connecting, for example) a plurality of the light receiving devices 2 in series).
Regarding claim 35, Kikuchi as modified by Stein teaches the method according to claim 21, wherein the installation has a conveyor belt (Kikuchi RD | Stein 114) and this is arranged relative to the light grid (Kikuchi LC | Stein 108) in such a way that a running direction of the conveyor belt (Kikuchi RD | Stein 114) is directed essentially perpendicular to the plane spanned by the light grid (Kikuchi LC | Stein 108) (Kikuchi, see figure 1, transport path RD running in direction D perpendicular to the optical axis of light curtain LC; and ¶40, the transport path RD is realized by a belt conveyer; and Stein, see figure 1, conveyor 114 arranged perpendicularly to the plane of light curtain 108).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. (USPGPub 20150301221 A1) in view of Stein et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9910186 B2) as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Rohbeck et al. (EP 3875993 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Kikuchi as modified by Stein teaches wherein two light grids are used (Kikuchi LC | Stein 108) (Kikuchi, see figure 17; and ¶137, As shown in FIG. 17, it is possible to form a combined detection area by disposing (connecting, for example) a plurality (three in FIG. 17, but the number is not limited to three) of the light projecting devices 1 of the multiple optical axis photoelectric sensor SNS in series while disposing (connecting, for example) a plurality of the light receiving devices 2 in series). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the light beams of the two light grids are perpendicular to one another.
However, Rohbeck teaches wherein the light beams of the two light grids are perpendicular to one another (see figure 4, two light grids arranged on a plane and perpendicular to one another).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kikuchi and Stein to incorporate the teachings of Rohbeck to provide two perpendicular light grids in order to monitor the objects passing along both the horizontal direction and vertical direction, allowing the controller to better evaluate the objects.
Claims 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. (USPGPub 20150301221 A1) in view of Rohbeck et al. (EP 3875993 A1) and Stein et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9910186 B2).
Regarding claim 36, Kikuchi teaches a sensor arrangement with at least one light grid (LC) for monitoring a protective field comprising: two strips (1/2), namely a first strip (1) and a second strip (2), which can be arranged opposite one another and are equipped with transmitters (11) and receivers (21), so that in operation a monitoring field is defined between the transmitters (11) and receivers (21) of the two strips (1/2) (see figures 1 and 14, light projecting device 1 and light receiving device 2; and ¶42, The plurality of light emitting elements 11 and the plurality of light receiving elements 21 are positioned in a one-to-one relationship. Therefore, it is possible to set up a two-dimensional detection area LC formed by a plurality of optical axes), and a control and monitoring unit (6), which is connected to the first strip (1) and the second strip (2), and has stored in a memory a program which ensures that a switching signal is generated when an object (W) enters the protective field, by means of which a safety function can be triggered (see figure 4, controller 6; ¶59, The communication circuits 17, 27 are communication interfaces compatible to RS485, and control transmissions of signals between the light projecting device 1 and the light receiving device 2, signals between the controller 6 and the light projecting device 1, and signals between the controller 6 and the light receiving device 2. The aggregated detection result is output to the controller 6 by way of the communication circuit 27; see ¶¶80-85 for further details; and ¶74, The control section 51 includes a CPU, and either of a read.sup.-only memory (ROM) for storing a program to be executed in this CPU and a random access memory (RAM) for storing a variable and the like required for program execution in the CPU), wherein the program is configured to provide a division of the protective field (LC) when the object (W) enters the protective field (LC), wherein the protective field (LC) is divided into a first region, a second region (PM), and a tolerance region (M1/M2) (see figure 14, first region (unlabeled) residing outside of the muted areas of the light curtain LC, the muting area PM (i.e. second region), and allowance ranges M1 and M2 (i.e. tolerance region)), wherein the second region (PM) is defined by all light beams interrupted by the object (W) (see figure 14; ¶115, While the workpiece W passes through the detection area LC, the area of light blocked by the workpiece W is acquired. Optical axes 11_U, 11_D corresponding to both edges of the area are determined by the multiple optical axis photoelectric sensor SNS. The area between the optical axes 11_U, 11_D is set as the altered muting area PM (second range); and see ¶120 for additional details), wherein the tolerance region (M1/M2) is disposed on each of the two opposite sides of the second region (PM), wherein if free neighboring light beams are present on the respective side of the second region (PM), the tolerance region (M1/M2) on that side of the second region (PM) includes neighboring free light beams (see figure 14; ¶117, One or both of an allowance range M1 and an allowance range M2 may be added outside of the muting area PM as a muting range continuous to the muting area PM, as required. The allowance range M1 is an additional range above the muting area PM. The allowance range M2 is an additional range below the muting area PM; and see ¶120 for further details), and remaining free light beams form the first region (see figure 14, first region (unlabeled) residing outside of the muted areas of the light curtain LC), wherein light beams in the tolerance region (M1/M2) are ignored and no shutdown signal is generated (¶118, With the addition of one or both of the allowance range M1 and the allowance range M2 in the muting area PM, it is possible to set up a muting area for allowing the vibration of the workpiece W; see ¶128 for further details; and abstract, a muting area for nullifying the result of detection of blocked light is set up), and wherein a shutdown signal is generated when a light beam is interrupted in the first region (¶48, When receiving the signal indicating the state “detection” from the multiple optical axis photoelectric sensor, the power source supply circuit of the machine stops the power supply to the machine in order to transfer the machine to a state in which safety is assured; and see ¶¶47-48 for further details). However, Kikuchi fails to explicitly teach wherein a muting function is provided by means of which the monitoring can be at least partially bridged, wherein the second region is defined by all light beams interrupted by the object with the exception of at least one outermost light beam of the light beams interrupted by the object on a side of the second region, wherein the tolerance region further includes the at least one outermost light beam interrupted by the object in addition to the free neighboring light beams present on the side of the second region, and wherein the light grid checks the number of interrupted light beams in the second region as long as the object is located in the protective field; and wherein a shutdown signal is generated when not all light beams in the protective field are free after a first predefined period of time after release of an interrupted light beam in the second region.
However, Rohbeck teaches wherein a muting function is provided by means of which the monitoring can be at least partially bridged (¶8, the light curtain in the conveying direction of the conveying unit may be preceded by muting sensors with which permitted objects are detected. If this is the case, the monitoring function of the light curtain is mutated, i.e. bridged, for a predefined time, so that the admissible objects can pass through the light curtain without the latter generating a switching signal which initiates the safety function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kikuchi to incorporate the teachings of Rohbeck to provide a bridging of the monitoring function so that the admissible objects can pass through the light curtain without the latter generating a switching signal which initiates the safety function (Rohbeck, ¶8). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the second region is defined by all light beams interrupted by the object with the exception of at least one outermost light beam of the light beams interrupted by the object on a side of the second region, wherein the tolerance region further includes the at least one outermost light beam interrupted by the object in addition to the free neighboring light beams present on the side of the second region, and wherein the light grid checks the number of interrupted light beams in the second region as long as the object is located in the protective field; and wherein a shutdown signal is generated when not all light beams in the protective field are free after a first predefined period of time after release of an interrupted light beam in the second region.
However, Stein teaches wherein the second region is defined by all light beams interrupted by the object (1002) with the exception of at least one outermost light beam of the light beams interrupted by the object (1002) on a side of the second region (see figure 10; and col. 14, lines 2-6, the tolerance band comprises the Nth beam (the highest beam interrupted by the front edge of the product 1002), the beam immediately below the Nth beam, and the beam immediately above the Nth beam), wherein the tolerance region further includes the at least one outermost light beam interrupted by the object (1002) in addition to the free neighboring light beams present on the side of the second region (see figure 10; and col. 14, lines 2-6, the tolerance band comprises the Nth beam (the highest beam interrupted by the front edge of the product 1002), the beam immediately below the Nth beam, and the beam immediately above the Nth beam), and wherein the light grid (108) checks the number of interrupted light beams in the second region as long as the object (1002) is located in the protective field (108); and wherein a shutdown signal is generated when not all light beams in the protective field (108) are free after a first predefined period of time after release of an interrupted light beam in the second region (col. 14, lines 35-50, The muting control component 506 continues to monitor the beams in order to determine if one or both of the two unsafe conditions has occurred. The first unsafe condition—interruption of a non-muted beam above the set muting height—suggests that a second object (e.g., a human operator) is riding on top of the product, or walking along side of the product, as the product traverses through the protective field. The second unsafe condition—non-interruption of a monitored muted beam below the set muting height—suggests that the object passing through the light curtain is not the expected box shape, and therefore is not a valid product. At time T7, the muting control component 506 determines that one or both of these two unsafe conditions have occurred. In response to detecting this condition, muting control component 506 instructs output component 510 to initiate safety mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kikuchi and Rohbeck to incorporate the teachings of Stein to have the second region exclude the outer most beams in order to account for the potential movement/vibration of the object without stopping the entire system or causing unnecessary readjustments of the muting zone. Additionally, it would have been obvious to monitor the interrupted beams of the second region in order to determine whether an object passing through the light grid is the expected object or not, thereby preventing an unexpected object from passing into the danger zone of the assembly.
Regarding claim 37, sensor arrangement according to claim 36, wherein when the object (Kikuchi W | Rohbeck 5 | Stein 1002) enters the protective field (Kikuchi LC | Stein 108) after interruption of a light beam and expiry of a predefined second time period, the protective field (Kikuchi LC | Stein 108) is divided into the first, the second (Kikuchi PM), and the tolerance region (Kikuchi M1/M2) (Kikuchi, ¶54, the multiple optical axis photoelectric sensor SNS examines the range of optical axes whose light is blocked by workpieces or pallets over a certain period of time. The range of optical axes whose light is blocked is referred to as “light blocking area”. The multiple optical axis photoelectric sensor SNS sets up the muting area on the basis of the light blocking area; and see remainder of ¶54 for further details; and Stein, see figure 8, light curtain interrupted at time T2 and the muting height (i.e. regions) are set just after time T3; and col. 13, lines 48-51, when the front edge of product 1002 first enters the protective field, the Nth beam from the lower most beam is detected as the highest interrupted beam. The tolerance value is configured to be ±X beams, where X is an integer).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-29 and 38-40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the method according to claims 22 and 21 as claimed, wherein the minimum size of the second region is defined by at least three interrupted light beams, more specifically in combination with wherein if the division of the protective field into the first region, the second region, and the tolerance region, such that the second region has the minimum size, is not possible after the predefined second period of time has elapsed, the shutdown signal is generated.
Regarding claim 24, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the method according to claim 21 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the tolerance region is formed by an equal number of free and interrupted light beams.
Regarding claim 25, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the method according to claim 21 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the predefined first period of time has a maximum length of 4 seconds.
Regarding claim 26, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the method according to claim 21 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the predefined first period of time has a length of at least 5 ms.
Regarding claim 27, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the method according to claims 22 and 21 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the predefined second period of time has a maximum length of 4 seconds.
Regarding claim 28, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the method according to claims 22 and 21 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the predefined second period of time has a length of at least 5 ms.
Regarding claim 29, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the method according to claim 21 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein as long as the object is located in the protective field, the light grid checks the number of interrupted light beams at a regular time interval, wherein the regular time interval is 0.5 to 30 ms.
Regarding claim 38, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the sensor arrangement according to claim 36 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the first predefined period of time has a length of at least 5 ms, and a maximum of 4 seconds.
Regarding claim 39, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the sensor arrangement according to claims 37 and 36 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the predefined second time period has a length of at least 5 ms, and of at most 4 seconds.
Regarding claim 40, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the sensor arrangement according to claims 37 and 36 as claimed, wherein the minimum size of the second region is defined by at least three interrupted light beams, more specifically in combination with wherein if the division of the protective field into the first region, the second region, and the tolerance region, such that the second region has the minimum size, is not possible after the predefined second period of time has elapsed, the shutdown signal is generated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571)272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights