DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, Examiner respectfully suggests amending the limitation “a powder reclamation system” in line 8 to “the powder reclamation system” to clarify that the powder reclamation system recited in line 8 refers to the powder reclamation system recited in the preamble in line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Lajudie et al. (US20180021855).
Regarding claim 1, De Lajudie teaches a method of reclaiming powder using a powder reclamation system (Abstract: An additive-manufacturing facility and a method for managing a powder transported to and from additive-manufacturing machines of the facility are provided), the method comprising:
recovering a first unused portion of a first powder from a first metal powder processing device ([0055]; see rough components PB extracted from machine M1 in Figure 1);
recovering a second unused portion of a second powder from a second metal powder processing device ([0055]; see rough components PB extracted from machine M2 in Figure 1);
providing the first unused portion of the first powder and the second unused portion of the second powder to a housing of a (see annotated Figure 2 below) comprising a separator (sifting device 56; Figure 2);
separating a first portion of the first and second powders from a second portion of the first and second powders using the separator ([0088]);
recirculating a first part of the second portion of the first and second powders back to the first metal powder processing device ([0109] the facility 10 and for conveying the excess powder collected from each machine M1,M2 to the volume of feedstock powder VPA and [0113] the management method makes provision for the powder to be transported under gravity or pneumatically and under vacuum from the volume of feedstock powder VPA as far as each machine M1,M2 of the facility; see annotated Figure 2 below); and
recirculating a second part of the second portion of the first and second powders back to the second metal powder processing device ([0109] the facility 10 and for conveying the excess powder collected from each machine M1,M2 to the volume of feedstock powder VPA and [0113] the management method makes provision for the powder to be transported under gravity or pneumatically and under vacuum from the volume of feedstock powder VPA as far as each machine M1,M2 of the facility; see annotated Figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
715
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, De Lajudie teaches the method of claim 1, wherein recovering the first unused portion of the first powder from the first metal powder processing device comprises controlling an amount of the first unused portion of the first powder that is recovered from the first metal powder processing device ([0068] Advantageously, each discharge line 26 from each machine M1,M2 comprises a powder flow regulating device 28 interposed between the discharge opening 24 of this machine and the collecting duct 20. Thus, the various regulating devices 28 allow the transfer of excess powder from the machines M1,M2 to the collecting circuit 20 to be halted in order to limit the running times of the vacuum generating means 23 and the electrical power consumption thereof).
Regarding claim 3, De Lajudie teaches the method of claim 2, wherein recovering the second unused portion of the second powder from the second metal powder processing device comprises controlling an amount of the second unused portion of the second powder that is recovered from the second metal powder processing device ([0068] Advantageously, each discharge line 26 from each machine M1,M2 comprises a powder flow regulating device 28 interposed between the discharge opening 24 of this machine and the collecting duct 20. Thus, the various regulating devices 28 allow the transfer of excess powder from the machines M1,M2 to the collecting circuit 20 to be halted in order to limit the running times of the vacuum generating means 23 and the electrical power consumption thereof).
Regarding claim 4, De Lajudie teaches the method of claim 2, wherein controlling the amount of the first unused portion of the first powder that is recovered from the first metal powder processing device comprises controlling a parameter of a carrier gas flow through a first reclamation passageway ([0071]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 5, De Lajudie teaches the method of claim 1, wherein recirculating the first part of the second portion of the first and second powders back to the first metal powder processing device comprises controlling an amount of the first part of the second portion of the first and second powders that is recirculated back to the first metal powder processing device (see powder flow regulating device 96 connected to receiving hopper 88 that regulates the amount of powder that is recirculated back to processing device M1 in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, De Lajudie teaches the method of claim 1, wherein recirculating the second part of the second portion of the first and second powders back to the second metal powder processing device comprises controlling an amount of the second part of the second portion of the first and second powders that is recirculated back to the second metal powder processing device (see powder flow regulating device 96 connected to receiving hopper 88 that regulates the amount of powder that is recirculated back to processing device M2 in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, De Lajudie teaches the method of claim 5, wherein controlling the amount of the first part of the second portion of the first and second powders that is recirculated back to the first metal powder processing device ([0105] a separation device 82 comprises a distributor 84 inserted into the distribution circuit 52, a receiving hopper 88 receiving the mixture of powder and of carrier gas, and a depressurizing filter 90. The distributor 84 may adopt two positions: a divert position in which it diverts the mixture of powder and of carrier gas to the receiving hopper 88 via a bypass duct 92 and a neutral position in which it allows this mixture of powder and of carrier gas to circulate in the distribution duct 74 and toward the other machines M1,M2 of the facility; see separation device 82 with a receiving hopper 88 in each of M1 and M2 in Figure 2) comprises controlling a parameter of a carrier gas flow through a first recirculation passageway (a semi-dilute phase is set in distribution circuit 52 where the first part of the second portion of the first and second powders is recirculated back to the first metal powder processing device through distributor 83 that is inserted into distribution circuit 52. The semi-dilute phase is controlled through the amount of powder relative to a particular gas flow rate as discussed in [0102]-[0103]).
Regarding claim 8, De Lajudie teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining an operating parameter of the powder reclamation system (whether powder is to be transported in a dilute or dense phase which is determined by the amount of powder relative to gas carrier flow rate); and
controlling the recovering the first and second unused portions of the first and second powders in response to the operating parameter of the powder reclamation system ([0091]-[0092]).
Regarding claim 9, De Lajudie teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining an operating parameter of the powder reclamation system; and
controlling the recirculating the first and second parts of the second portion of the first and second powders in response to the operating parameter of the powder reclamation system ([0105] a separation device 82 comprises a distributor 84 inserted into the distribution circuit 52, a receiving hopper 88 receiving the mixture of powder and of carrier gas, and a depressurizing filter 90. The distributor 84 may adopt two positions: a divert position in which it diverts the mixture of powder and of carrier gas to the receiving hopper 88 via a bypass duct 92 and a neutral position in which it allows this mixture of powder and of carrier gas to circulate in the distribution duct 74 and toward the other machines M1,M2 of the facility; see separation device 82 with a receiving hopper 88 in each of M1 and M2 in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 18, De Lajudie teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising selectively dosing the second portion of the first and second unused portions of the first and second metal powders with virgin powder at a location upstream of the first and second metal powder processing devices ([0057] and [0058] the volume of fresh powder VPN is used almost solely to compensate for the volume of powder converted into rough components PB by the machines M1,M2 of the facility; see device 18 for storing volume of fresh powder VPN in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 20, De Lajudie teaches the method of claim 1, wherein sizes of respective particles of the second portion of the first and second powders are smaller than sizes of respective particles of the first portion of the first and second powders ([0088]).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lajudie et al. (US20180021855), and further in view of Pressacco et al. (US20150034123).
Regarding claim 10, De Lajudie teaches the method of claim 1. While De Lajudie teaches an amount of fresh powder is added to compensate for the volume of powder converted into objects within the additive manufacturing machines and for the clumps of powder rejected as waste by the filtering operation ([0058]), De Lajudie fails to teach to teach the method further comprising: determining an operating parameter of the first metal powder processing device, of the second metal powder processing device, or both; and controlling the recirculating the first and second parts of the second portion of the first and second powders in response to the determined operating parameter.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to the recovery and regeneration of powder in additive manufacturing devices, Pressacco teaches determining an operating parameter of a metal powder processing device ([0120] the value of the percentage amount of oxygen in the recovered powders corresponds to the oxygen content of the initial powder before its use in the EBM machine, namely that it lies within a range of values of between 0.12 and 0.16%) and controlling the recirculating the powder in response to the determined operating parameter ([0110]-[0121]). Controlling the powder recirculation in response to a required oxygen concentration for powders to be used in the additive manufacturing machine provides full control over oxygen content of the powders and ensures processing operations with a greater yield ([0126]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the method of De Lajudie to comprise determining an operating parameter of the first metal powder processing device, of the second metal powder processing device, or both; and controlling the recirculating the first and second parts of the second portion of the first and second powders in response to the determined operating parameter, as taught by Pressacco, for the benefit of controlling the powder oxygen content such that processing operations are carried out with a greater yield.
Regarding claim 11, De Lajudie teaches the method of claim 1. While De Lajudie teaches an amount of fresh powder is added to compensate for the volume of powder converted into objects within the additive manufacturing machines and for the clumps of powder rejected as waste by the filtering operation such that a need for additional powder for the metal powder processing devices is determined ([0058]), De Lajudie fails to teach controlling the recirculating the first and second parts of the second portion of the first and second powders in response to the determined need for additional powder.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to the recovery and regeneration of powder in additive manufacturing devices, Pressacco teaches controlling recirculating powders in response to the determined need for additional powder ([0102], [0103], and [0109]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the method of De Lajudie to comprise controlling recirculating powders in response to a determined need for additional powder, as taught by Pressacco, to ensure that enough build material with certain oxygen content is present in the metal powder processing devices to complete object builds.
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lajudie et al. (US20180021855), and further in view of Nicholson (US4497709).
Regarding claim 12, De Lajudie teaches the method of claim 1. While De Lajudie teaches separating the first portion of the first and second powders from the second portion of the first and second powders using the separator further comprises filtering the first and second powders (sifting device 56; Figure 2), De Lajudie fails to teach the filter comprises a first filter and a second filter.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to filter systems, Nicholson teaches the filter comprises a first filter (filter media 20; Figure 3) and a second filter (circular filter media 26; Figure 2). A second filter provides a backup filter that increases the powder filtering size range and efficiency (col 1 line 13-16).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the sifting device of De Lajudie to comprise a first and second filter, as taught by Nicholson, for the benefit of providing a backup filter that increases the powder filtering size range and efficiency.
Regarding claim 13 and 14, De Lajudie modified with Nicholson teaches the method of claim 12.
Further, Nicholson teaches sealing the material from an upstream portion located upstream of the first filter to a downstream portion located downstream of the second filter with a continuous seal extending around an outside edge of the first filter and an outside edge of the second filter (see resilient sleeve 28 sealing and extending around edges of filter media 20 and circular filter media 26 in Figure 2). The continuous seal of Nicholson provides a two filter unit with does not require fabrication as a permanent single unit such that the filter screens can be easily selectively repaired, substituted or replaced (col 1 line 37-42).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the sifting device of De Lajudie modified with Nicholson to be sealed from an upstream portion located upstream of the first filter to a downstream portion located downstream of the second filter with a continuous seal extending around an outside edge of the first filter and an outside edge of the second filter, as taught by Nicholson, for the benefit of selectively repair, substituting, or replacing the filter screens without excessive cost.
Claim(s) 12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lajudie et al. (US20180021855), and further in view of Derrick et al. (US4575421).
Regarding claim 12, De Lajudie teaches the method of claim 1. While De Lajudie teaches separating the first portion of the first and second powders from the second portion of the first and second powders using the separator further comprises filtering the first and second powders (sifting device 56; Figure 2), De Lajudie fails to teach the filter comprises a first filter and a second filter.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to filter systems, Derrick teaches the filter comprises a first filter (perforated metal plate 11; Figure 2) and a second filter (screens 24-26; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the sifting device of De Lajudie to comprise a first and second filter, as taught by Derrick, for the benefit of providing a backup filter that increases the powder filtering size range and efficiency
Regarding claim 15, De Lajudie modified with Derrick teaches the method of claim 12. De Lajudie teaches the sifting device comprising a vibrating belt to separate the first portion of the first and second powders from the second portion of the first and second powders ([0088]), and Derrick teaches vibrating the second filter to separate material (col 4 line 3-6). Vibrating filters prevent material from blogging or blinding during the filtering process (col 1 line 11-14).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to vibrate the second filter of De Lajudie modified with Derrick, as taught by Derrick, for the benefit of preventing material from blogging or blinding during the filtering process.
Regarding claim 16 and 17, De Lajudie modified with Derrick teaches the method of claim 12.
Further, Derrick teachers wherein the first filter is substantially rigid (substantially rigid plate 11; Figure 2), and wherein the second filter is substantially flexible and movable relative to the first filter (col 3 line 44-47). The movable second filter eliminates blinding or clogging while the substantially rigid first filter supports the second filter such that wear is reduced (col 4 line 24-29).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the first filter of De Lajudie modified with Derrick be substantially rigid, and for the second filter of De Lajudie modified with Derrick to be substantially flexible and movable relative to the first filter, as taught by Derrick, for the benefit of eliminating blinding or clogging during the filtering process while reducing wear of the second filter.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lajudie et al. (US20180021855).
Regarding claim 19, De Lajudie teaches the method of claim 1, wherein recirculating the first part of the second portion of the first and second powders back to the first metal powder processing device further comprises controlling a powder flow regulating device to regulate a flow of the first part of the second portion of the first and second powders ([0106] the powder being stored in this receiving hopper 88 to be fed into the additive manufacturing machine to which it is connected by a powder flow regulating device 96).
While De Lajudie fails to explicitly teach that the powder flow regulating device is a recirculation valve, De Lajudie teaches other powder flow regulating devices within the powder reclamation system that are valves ([0066] a new powder flow regulating device 37 such as a valve is provided between the space 35 of the fresh powder storage device 18 and [0069] In the example depicted in FIG. 2, the flow regulating devices 28 take the form of an endless screw conveyor. However, these regulating devices 28 may also be simple valves, sluice gates or any other device able to regulate the flow of a pulverulent product being transported under gravity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the powder flow regulator that recirculates the first part of the second portion of the first and second powders back to the first metal powder processing device be a recirculation valve, as taught by other powder flow regulators in the powder reclamation system of De Lajudie, to achieve the predictable result of controlling powder flow into the metal powder processing devices. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the powder flow regulator to be a recirculation valve, since De Lajudie points to other powder flow regulators within the powder reclamation system that use valves to control the powder flow.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 12, 16, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,590,537 (herein referred to as reference patent) in view of De Lajudie et al. (US20180021855).
Regarding claim 1, reference patent teaches a method of reclaiming powder using a powder reclamation system (see claim 17 line 1), the method comprising:
recovering a first unused portion of a first powder from a first metal powder processing device (see claim 17 line 2);
providing the first unused portion of the first powder to a housing of a powder reclamation system comprising a separator (see claim 17 line 3-4);
separating a first portion of the first powder from a second portion of the first powder using the separator (see claim 17 line 5-7);
recirculating a first part of the second portion of the first powder back to the first metal powder processing device (see claim 17 line 8-9).
However, reference patent fails to teach recovering a second unused portion of a second powder from a second metal powder processing device such that a second unused portion of the second powder is provided to a housing of the powder reclamation system, a first portion of the first and second powders is separated from a second portion of the first and second powders using the separator, and a second part of the second portion of the first and second powders is recirculated back to the second metal powder processing device.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to the recovery and regeneration of powder in additive manufacturing devices, De Lajudie teaches recovering a second unused portion of a second powder from a second metal powder processing device ([0055]; see rough components PB extracted from machine M2 in Figure 1);
providing the first unused portion of the first powder and the second unused portion of the second powder to a housing of a (see annotated Figure 2 in the rejection of claim 1 above) comprising a separator (sifting device 56; Figure 2);
separating a first portion of the first and second powders from a second portion of the first and second powders using the separator ([0088]);
recirculating a first part of the second portion of the first and second powders back to the first metal powder processing device ([0109] the facility 10 and for conveying the excess powder collected from each machine M1,M2 to the volume of feedstock powder VPA and [0113] the management method makes provision for the powder to be transported under gravity or pneumatically and under vacuum from the volume of feedstock powder VPA as far as each machine M1,M2 of the facility; see annotated Figure 2 below); and
recirculating a second part of the second portion of the first and second powders back to the second metal powder processing device ([0109] the facility 10 and for conveying the excess powder collected from each machine M1,M2 to the volume of feedstock powder VPA and [0113] the management method makes provision for the powder to be transported under gravity or pneumatically and under vacuum from the volume of feedstock powder VPA as far as each machine M1,M2 of the facility; see annotated Figure 2 below).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the method of reclaiming powder of the instant application include recovering a second unused portion of a second powder from a second metal powder processing device and recirculating a second part of the second portion of the first and second powders back to the second metal powder processing device, as taught by De Lajudie, since a mere duplication of parts has been found obvious (see MPEP 2144.04.VI.B.). In the instant case, a mere duplication of metal powder processing devices that each generate an overflow of powder to be recovered would be obvious, since one of ordinary skill would be motivated to increase the throughput of manufactured objects by increasing the number of devices that manufacture such objects.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1743