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 .
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 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one retaining feature” in claim 7. This limitation invokes 112(f) because it meets the three-prong test: 1) it uses a generic placeholder “feature”; 2) it is modified by functional language: to retain the neck of the bottle; and 3) it is not modified by any structural limitations in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The Specification discloses the retaining feature as: as a groove, protrusion, indentation, step, or other structural feature configured to facilitate maintaining the bottle (Par 0026). Examiner will interpret it as such, or equivalent thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the neck of the bottle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret claim 8 as dependent on claim 7, which introduces “a neck”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the incline fluid injector system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Based on claim language, Examiner will interpret this as the disposer fluid injection system.
Claims 11-18 are indefinite for depending on claim 10.
Claim 17 recites the limitations "the at least one retaining feature" and “the neck of the bottle” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret claim 17 as dependent on claim 16, which introduces these features.
Claim 19 discloses “a disposer fluid injector system” twice; once in line 1 and again in line 3. This is considered double inclusion, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if there are one or more than one disposer fluid injector system. For examination purposes, the limitation in line 3 will be interpreted as said disposer fluid injector system.
Claim 19 discloses “a waste disposer” in line 1 and “a disposer” in line 3. This is considered double inclusion, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if there are one or more than one disposers. For examination purposes, the limitation in line 3 will be interpreted as said disposer.
Claim 20 is indefinite for depending on claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 10-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradley et al (U.S. 2012/0126045).
Regarding claim 1, Bradley teaches a waste disposer system (seen in Fig 4A, as a whole) comprising:
a waste disposer (200) having a primary inlet (shown below) through which the waste disposer receives water and food scraps (as seen below, the primary inlet receives waste from kitchen sink 175), a primary outlet through which waste and water are output from the food waste disposer (outlet of disposer 200 that sends waste to a drain pipe, not shown; by definition, waster disposers have an outlet that sends waste down a drain pipe after the waste has been processed), and a dishwasher inlet (defined by line 205, which connects the dishwasher 225 to the disposer 200, see Fig 4A);
a disposer fluid injector system (100) including a fluid injector assembly (defined by cap 130, support 108, and activation mechanism 150, base 102/110, and bottle 50; seen in detail in Figs 1A-2) fluidly connected to the dishwasher inlet (100 connects to dishwasher inlet 205, as seen in Fig 4A), the fluid injector assembly including a base unit (defined by 102 and 110) and a bottle (50) that is received by the base unit (as seen in Fig 1B).
Regarding claim 2, Bradley teaches the waste disposer system of claim 1, further comprising an injector coupling (defined by pipe adapter 136 and seal 142) that fluidly connects to the dishwasher inlet of the waste disposer (as disclosed in Par 0023), and a tube (124) that fluidly connects the fluid injector assembly to the injector coupling (tube 124 connects the injector assembly at cap 130 to the injector coupling 136, as seen in Figs 1A-2).
Regarding claim 3, Bradley teaches the waste disposer system of claim 2, wherein the injector coupling includes a main body (pipe 136) having a first end (shown below) and a second end (shown below), and an injector inlet (shown below) configured to receive fluid from the fluid injector assembly (fluid from the injector assembly comes from bottle 50 into the injector inlet through the tube 124), wherein the first end of the main body connects to the dishwasher inlet (as shown below, the first end connects to dishwasher inlet 205, further seen in Fig 4A and disclosed in Par 0023 and 0028) and incudes an injection outlet (128, shown below) configured to inject the fluid into the disposer (as disclosed in Par 0023).
Regarding claim 4, Bradley teaches the waste disposer system of claim 3, wherein the injector coupling further includes a plug (shown below) that removably secures to the second end (the plug is configured to removably secure the second end to dishwasher hose 215, see Fig 4A).
Regarding claim 10, Bradley teaches a disposer fluid injector system (100) for use with a waste disposer (200), the incline fluid injector system comprising:
a fluid injector assembly (defined by cap 130, support 108, and activation mechanism 150, base 102/110, and bottle 50; seen in detail in Figs 1A-2) configured to be fluidly connected to a dishwasher inlet (defined by line 205, which connects the dishwasher 225 to the disposer 200, see Fig 4A) of the disposer (100 connects to dishwasher inlet 205, as seen in Fig 4A), the fluid injector assembly including a base unit (defined by 102 and 110) and a bottle (50) that is received by the base unit (as seen in Fig 1B).
Regarding claim 11, Bradley teaches the disposer fluid injector system of claim 10, further comprising an injector coupling (defined by pipe adapter 136 and seal 142) that fluidly connects to the dishwasher inlet of the waste disposer (as disclosed in Par 0023), and a tube (124) that fluidly connects the fluid injector assembly to the injector coupling (tube 124 connects the injector assembly at cap 130 to the injector coupling 136, as seen in Figs 1A-2).
Regarding claim 12, Bradley teaches the disposer fluid injector system of claim 11, wherein the injector coupling includes a main body (pipe 136) having a first end (shown below) and a second end (shown below), and an injector inlet (shown below) configured to receive fluid from the fluid injector assembly (fluid from the injector assembly comes from bottle 50 into the injector inlet through the tube 124), wherein the first end of the main body connects to the dishwasher inlet (as shown below, the first end connects to dishwasher inlet 205, further seen in Fig 4A and disclosed in Par 0023 and 0028) and incudes an injection outlet (128, shown below) configured to inject the fluid into the disposer (as disclosed in Par 0023).
Regarding claim 13, Bradley teaches the disposer fluid injector system of claim 12, wherein the injector coupling further includes a plug (shown below) that removably secures to the second end (the plug is configured to removably secure the second end to dishwasher hose 215, see Fig 4A).
Regarding claim 19, Bradley teaches a method of operating a disposer fluid injector system (100) installed with a waste disposer (200)(as seen in Fig 4A), the method including:
connecting said disposer fluid injector system (100) to said disposer (200) (as seen in Fig 4A);
turning on the disposer fluid injector system (the injector system is turned on by activation of the activation mechanism 150, as disclosed in Pars 0024-25); and
automatically performing at least one injection cycle by the fluid injector system (the system includes a circuit board 170 that controls a drive motor that activates the injection system, wherein the circuit board includes a timer control circuit that controls activation of the system – see Par 0027; as such, activation is done automatically – see also abstract; wherein each time activation system is actuated 150 is considered an injection cycle).
PNG
media_image1.png
158
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
522
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5-6, 9, 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley et al (U.S. 2012/0126045) in view of Frederick (U.S. 2010/0213279).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Bradley teaches the waste disposer system of claim 1, wherein the base unit includes a housing (108) having a bottle receiving area (108 is disclosed as a top canister, i.e. bottle, support member – see Par 0020; thus it has a bottle receiving area, see Fig 1B which shows the top of the bottle housed inside 108) , and the bottle receiving area includes a neck receiving portion that extends into the base unit (neck receiving portion defined inside 108, which houses the top of canister/bottle 50, which has a neck); wherein the bottle is retained in the base unit in an inverted position (the orientation of the bottle depends on how the device is oriented as a whole, since the device works with a pressurized canister, see Par 0019, the canister can work in an inverted position; as such, if the user installs the injector assembly in an inverter position, the bottle would be inverted as well).
If it is found that Bradley does not teach the bottle receiving area including a neck receiving portion that extends into the base unit; and the bottle being retained in the base unit in an inverted position, Frederick teaches a liquid injection device (seen in Fig 4) that has a base unit (38) with a housing (body of 38) having a bottle receiving area (recess 39) including a neck receiving portion (portion that receives neck and cap 36 of bottle 18, see Fig 4) that extends into the base unit (see direction arrow W2 on Fig 4); and a bottle being retained in the base unit in an inverted position (as seen in Fig 4 and 5, the bottle is retained in the base unit with the cap 36 facing down, i.e. downwards).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley to incorporate the teachings of Frederick to provide a bottle configuration that allows for refilling and reusing the bottle (as disclosed in Par 0039 of Fredrick). This would benefit the device of Bradley since the canister 50 would need to be fully replaced when the contents run out, give that it is a pressurized canister. By way of this modification, the bottle receiving area of the housing would including a neck receiving portion that extends into the base unit, and the bottle would be retained in the base unit in an inverted position.
Regarding claims 9, Bradley teaches the waste disposer system of claim 1, wherein the base has a control unit (circuit board 170, placed in the base unit, as seen in Fig 2). However, Bradly does not teach the system wherein the base unit includes a pump, and wherein the control unit causes the pump to periodically perform an injection cycle in which the fluid injector assembly injects fluid into the disposer.
Frederick teaches a liquid injection device (seen in Fig 4) that has a base unit (38) that includes a pump (19, which is inside the base unit 38, as disclosed in Par 0048), and wherein a control unit (defined by control circuit 24 and display 26) causes the pump to periodically perform an injection cycle in which the fluid injector assembly injects fluid into a mixer (16) (as seen in Fig 7, the motor 20 of pump 19 is controlled by the control unit 24/26; Par 0005, 0009 and 0011 disclose the control unit as programmable wherein the user programs timings for cleansing liquid to be dispensed by the pump; each time the pump is activated to dispense liquid for a given time is considered a cycle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley to incorporate the teachings of Frederick to provide a pump and a control unit that controls the pump in order to give the user the ability to preprogram dispensing cycles and to fully automate dispensing as desired (as disclosed in Pars 0005, 0009, and 0011 of Frederick). In combination, each injection cycle would instruct the fluid injector assembly to inject fluid into the disposer 200 of Bradley.
Regarding claim 14 and 15, Bradley teaches the disposer fluid injector system of claim 10, wherein the base unit includes a housing (108) having a bottle receiving area (108 is disclosed as a top canister, i.e. bottle, support member – see Par 0020; thus it has a bottle receiving area, see Fig 1B which shows the top of the bottle housed inside 108), and the bottle receiving area includes a neck receiving portion that extends into the base unit (neck receiving portion defined inside 108, which houses the top of canister/bottle 50, which has a neck); and wherein the bottle is retained in the base unit in an inverted position (the orientation of the bottle depends on how the device is oriented as a whole, since the device works with a pressurized canister, see Par 0019, the canister can work in an inverted position; as such, if the user installs the injector assembly in an inverter position, the bottle would be inverted as well).
If it is found that Bradley does not teach the bottle receiving area including a neck receiving portion that extends into the base unit; and the bottle being retained in the base unit in an inverted position, Frederick teaches a liquid injection device (seen in Fig 4) that has a base unit (38) with a housing (body of 38) having a bottle receiving area (recess 39) including a neck receiving portion (portion that receives neck and cap 36 of bottle 18, see Fig 4) that extends into the base unit (see direction arrow W2 on Fig 4); and a bottle being retained in the base unit in an inverted position (as seen in Fig 4 and 5, the bottle is retained in the base unit with the cap 36 facing down, i.e. downwards).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley to incorporate the teachings of Frederick to provide a bottle configuration that allows for refilling and reusing the bottle (as disclosed in Par 0039 of Fredrick). This would benefit the device of Bradley since the canister 50 would need to be fully replaced when the contents run out, give that it is a pressurized canister. By way of this modification, the bottle receiving area of the housing would including a neck receiving portion that extends into the base unit, and the bottle would be retained in the base unit in an inverted position.
Regarding claim 18, Bradley teaches the disposer fluid injector system of claim 10, wherein the base unit includes a control unit (circuit board 170, placed in the base unit, as seen in Fig 2). However, Bradly does not teach the system wherein the base unit includes a pump, and the control unit causes the pump to periodically perform an injection cycle in which the fluid injector assembly injects fluid into the disposer.
Frederick teaches a liquid injection device (seen in Fig 4) that has a base unit (38) that includes a pump (19, which is inside the base unit 38, as disclosed in Par 0048), and wherein a control unit (defined by control circuit 24 and display 26) causes the pump to periodically perform an injection cycle in which the fluid injector assembly injects fluid into a mixer (16) (as seen in Fig 7, the motor 20 of pump 19 is controlled by the control unit 24/26; Par 0005, 0009 and 0011 disclose the control unit as programmable wherein the user programs timings for cleansing liquid to be dispensed by the pump; each time the pump is activated to dispense liquid for a given time is considered a cycle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley to incorporate the teachings of Frederick to provide a pump and a control unit that controls the pump in order to give the user the ability to preprogram dispensing cycles and to fully automate dispensing as desired (as disclosed in Pars 0005, 0009, and 0011 of Frederick). In combination, each injection cycle would instruct the fluid injector assembly to inject fluid into the disposer 200 of Bradley.
Claims 7-8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley et al (U.S. 2012/0126045) in view of Ophardt et al (U.S. 2013/0001241).
Regarding claim 7, Bradley teaches the waste disposer system of claim 1. However, Bradley does not teach the system wherein the bottle includes a neck that has a top portion and at least one retaining feature, and a bottom portion.
Ophardt teaches a dispenser device that has a bottle (22) connected to a base (26), wherein the bottle includes a neck (27) that has a top portion (downstream end of 27) and at least one retaining feature (locking tab 29), and a bottom portion (upstream end of 27).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley to incorporate the teachings of Ophardt to provide the bottle with a neck having a retaining feature in order to circumferentially align the neck with the base and in order to prevent relative rotation (as disclosed in Par 0073 of Ophardt). By circumferentially aligning the bottle to the base, it is assured that the outlet of the bottle 50 of Bradley is in the right position such that the outlet of the bottle is aligned with tube cap 130.
Regarding claim 8, Bradley and Ophardt teaches the waste disposer system of claim 7, wherein the base unit includes a latch (locking tab 45, defined on base 26 of Ophardt) that engages the at least one retaining feature on the neck of the bottle (latch 45 engages retaining feature 29, as disclosed in Par 0073 of Ophardt).
Regarding claim 16, Bradley teaches the disposer fluid injector system of claim 10. However, Bradley does not teach the system wherein the bottle includes a neck that has a top portion and at least one retaining feature, and a bottom portion.
Ophardt teaches a dispenser device that has a bottle (22) connected to a base (26), wherein the bottle includes a neck (27) that has a top portion (downstream end of 27) and at least one retaining feature (locking tab 29), and a bottom portion (upstream end of 27).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley to incorporate the teachings of Ophardt to provide the bottle with a neck having a retaining feature in order to circumferentially align the neck with the base and in order to prevent relative rotation (as disclosed in Par 0073 of Ophardt). By circumferentially aligning the bottle to the base, it is assured that the outlet of the bottle 50 of Bradley is in the right position such that the outlet of the bottle is aligned with tube cap 130.
Regarding claim 17, Bradley and Ophardt teach the disposer fluid injector system of claim 16, wherein the base unit includes a latch (locking tab 45, defined on base 26 of Ophardt) that engages the at least one retaining feature on the neck of the bottle (latch 45 engages retaining feature 29, as disclosed in Par 0073 of Ophardt).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley et al (U.S. 2012/0126045) in view of Paas (WO 2008/067014 A2). Note: references to Paas are referring to the copy provided by Examiner herewith.
Regarding claim 20, Bradley teaches the method of claim 19. However, Bradley does not teach wherein the method also includes: priming the disposer fluid injector system prior to automatically performing at least one injection cycle.
Paas teaches a method for operating a system (Fig 1) that includes a fluid injector system (50, which includes pump 60, seen in Fig 13); the method comprising priming the disposer fluid injector system prior to automatically performing at least one injection cycle (as disclosed in page 8, lines 12-15, actuation of input 64 causes the pump 60 to be primed automatically; after the pump is primed liquid from bottle 52 is sent to adapter 58 for injection, i.e. the pump is activated and then a moment later injection happens, after liquid travels from the bottle to the adapter 58).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bradley to incorporate the teachings of Paas to provide a pump controlled by a controller in order to control any one of or combination of a time of operation of the pump, the duration of operation of the pump, and an amount of the cleaning material introduced to the disposer (as disclosed in page 2 line 30 to page 3, line 2 of Paas), which would provide the system of Bradley with greater control of the injection system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. HALL can be reached on 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights