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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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, 2, 3, 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6, 7, 9, 11-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11245869. Claims 1-5, 11-13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12126934. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are substantially similar save for variances of wording.
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 2, 3, 13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 2, 3 recite using or obtaining the audio clock from, based on, etc. the carrier clock whereas in claim 1 the carrier clock appears to be generated from the audio clock, the relationships diverse circumstances in claims 2, 3 render the claim indefinite but for there existing an upstream and downstream type of bidirectional flow—Examiner will carry forward such an interpretation into the art rejection infra. Claim 13 recites “the reception apparatus,” in a manner lacking clear antecedent. Appropriate correction is required
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichimura: 20100189104 hereinafter Ichi further in view of VESA DisplayPort Standard (copy provided by Examiner, copyright 2008 and hereinafter Vesa).
Regarding claim 1
Ichi teaches:
A reception apparatus (Ichi: Abstract: 84-86; Fig 1, 5: a display device serves as an HDMI sink, receives streams, etc.) comprising:
circuitry configured to receive a first stream including audio data from an external device (Ichi: Abstract: 84-86; Fig 1, 5: such as over an HDMI input of the display device, the HDMI stream operable to delivery both image and audio data from an external device),
process the received audio data in synchronization with an audio clock generated based on a link video clock (Ichi: ¶ 126-131, 151-167; Fig 4-6, 10: sink 22sk receives media and clock switching packets from a source such as 12sc, 32-1, processes same such as based on TDMS video clock parameters and CTS parameters such as by regenerating the clock based on the parameters and processing received audio in synchronization therewith),
transmit a second stream including encoded data in synchronization with a carrier clock generated by the reception apparatus based on the generated audio clock to the external device (Ichi: ¶ 126-130, 151-167; Fig 4-6, 10: sink, display device, etc. generates a carrier clock based on the audio clock, transmits second stream to downstream devices said stream comprising clock ratio data), and
receive a command from the external device to switch to the carrier clock generated by the reception apparatus (Ichi: ¶ 126-131, 151-167; Fig 4-6, 10: sink, display device, etc. queries downstream audio amplifying device for a response which establishes the audio amplifying device settings and is interpreted by the display device as a command to switch clock settings),
wherein the circuitry determines a process of switching to the carrier clock according to a determined mode of operation (Ichi: ¶ 126-131, 151-167; Fig 4-6, 10: in this way the switch to an auxiliary clock, path thereof is conditioned on determining the operating state settings of the downstream device by which the transmission/reception between devices configures to participate in the transmission based thereon).
Ichi does not explicitly teach the exchange of encoded data capable of clock recovery.
In a related field of endeavor Vesa teaches a reception apparatus (Vesa: pp 24: a sink device receives a stream, operates to render same such as using a main link) comprising:
circuitry configured to receive a first stream including audio data from an external device (Vesa: pp 29-33; Fig 1-1, 1-2: a first stream such as an isochronous stream comprising audio data is transmitted from a source to a sink device such as in concert with a plurality of rules for correct assembly of the stream in the sink device),
process the received audio data in synchronization with an audio clock generated based on a link video clock (Vesa: § 1.7, 1.7.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.4; Fig 2-8, 2-9, 2-10: sink device processes received stream in concert with an audio clock generated based on a link clock, the link clock based on a video clock generated at the source device);
transmit a second stream including encoded data capable of clock recovery in synchronization with a carrier clock generated by the reception apparatus based on the generated audio clock to the external device (Vesa: § 1.7, 1.7.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.3, 2.2.5.2.1; Fig 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-16, 2-17: sink device processes received stream in concert with an audio clock generated based on a link clock, the link clock based on a video clock generated at the source device and regenerated in the sink such as by use of Maud, Naud, values to determine an audio clock ratio of the video clock, corresponding link clock, etc. based thereon for conducting audio output upon the sink). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize the 8B10B encoded data stream including audio clock recovery values thereof as taught or suggested by Vesa to improve recovery of a clock based on receiving an initiation of clock recovery as taught or suggested by Ichi for at least the purpose of recovering and regenerating a clock based on embedded, stream borne clock recovery data; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 2
Ichi in view of Vesa teaches or suggests:
The reception apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the encoded data includes encoded data of dividing ratio information for obtaining the audio clock from the carrier clock (Ichi: ¶ 142, 145, 158-162: using CTS and N values system determines a dividing ratio); (Vesa: § 1.7, 1.7.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.3, 2.2.5.2.1; Fig 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-16, 2-17: such as by recovering clock data based on Maud, Naud values). The claim is considered obvious over Ichi as modified by Vesa as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ichi and/or Vesa to the modified device of Ichi and Vesa; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 3
Ichi in view of Vesa teaches or suggests:
The reception apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the encoded data includes encoded data of a request for using an audio clock generated based on the carrier clock (Ichi: ¶ 126-131, 151-167; Fig 4-6, 10: sink, display device, etc. queries downstream audio amplifying device for a response which establishes the audio amplifying device settings). The claim is considered obvious over Ichi as modified by Vesa as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ichi and/or Vesa to the modified device of Ichi and Vesa; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 4
Ichi in view of Vesa teaches or suggests:
The reception apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry receives the audio data from the external device through a first physical channel (Ichi: ¶ 132-146; 151-166; Fig 10: HDMI stream/channel comprising a TDMS clock) and the circuitry transmits the encoded data to the external device through a second physical channel (Ichi: ¶ 132-146; 151-166; Fig 10: clock data received over an auxiliary transmission path); (Vesa: § 1.7, 1.7.1; Fig 1-1: system communicates over a main link, Aux channels thereof). The claim is considered obvious over Ichi as modified by Vesa as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ichi and/or Vesa to the modified device of Ichi and Vesa; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 5
Ichi in view of Vesa teaches or suggests:
The reception apparatus according to claim 4, wherein each of the first physical channel and the second physical channel is a physical channel using an optical cable (Vesa: § 1.2.1; pp 174: Displayport technology disclosed variously addresses industry need; systems operative over optical interconnects countenanced). Examiner takes official notice that the utility of optical interconnects was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention and would have comprised an obvious inclusion for at least the purpose of minimizing EMI. The claim is considered obvious over Ichi as modified by Vesa as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ichi and/or Vesa to the modified device of Ichi and Vesa; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 6
Ichi in view of Vesa teaches or suggests:
The reception apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first stream further includes image data (Ichi: ¶ 3, 46, 90: audio and video data along with synchronization signals transmitted from a source to a sink over a network). The claim is considered obvious over Ichi as modified by Vesa as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ichi and/or Vesa to the modified device of Ichi and Vesa; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 7
Ichi in view of Vesa teaches or suggests:
The reception apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the circuitry receives the first stream by a main link reception unit (Ichi: ¶ 84-86 133-166; Fig 5: audio amplifying device transmits data constituting an AV signal over an HDMI terminal comprising the main link receiving section); (Vesa: pp 24; § 1.7.1; Fig 1-2, 2-8, 2-9: such as upon a main link data path from source to sink). The claim is considered obvious over Ichi as modified by Vesa as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ichi and/or Vesa to the modified device of Ichi and Vesa; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 8
Ichi in view of Vesa teaches or suggests:
The reception apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the audio clock is generated based on dividing ratio information for obtaining the audio clock from the link video clock (Ichi: ¶ 127, 142, 145, 158-162: using CTS and N values system determines a dividing ratio); (Vesa: § 1.7, 1.7.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.3, 2.2.5.2.1; Fig 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-16, 2-17: such as by recovering an audio clock using link clock data based on Maud, Naud values). The claim is considered obvious over Ichi as modified by Vesa as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ichi and/or Vesa to the modified device of Ichi and Vesa; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 9
Ichi in view of Vesa teaches or suggests:
The reception apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry transmits the second stream by a sub link transmission unit, and wherein the circuitry receives the command from the external device by the sub link transmission unit (Ichi: ¶ 79, 9, 160-168: such as over an auxiliary transmission path which transmits/receives the CTS, N, etc. dividing ratio data); (Vesa: pp 24; § 1.7.1; Fig 1-2, 2-8, 2-9: such as using a sub link data path to communicate portions of data including clock, Maud/Naud, etc. data). The claim is considered obvious over Ichi as modified by Vesa as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ichi and/or Vesa to the modified device of Ichi and Vesa; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 10
Ichi in view of Vesa teaches or suggests:
The reception apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to decode the received audio data based on the carrier clock generated by the reception apparatus for output by the reception apparatus (Ichi: ¶ 152-157: audio clock generated by a sink based on carrier clock relationships encoded as CTS and N); (Vesa: § 1.7, 1.7.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.3, 2.2.5.2.1; Fig 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-16, 2-17: such as by recovering an audio clock using link clock data based on Maud, Naud values). The claim is considered obvious over Ichi as modified by Vesa as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ichi and/or Vesa to the modified device of Ichi and Vesa; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 11
Ichi in view of Vesa teaches or suggests:
The reception apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the determined mode of operation is determined from among a normal mode or an option mode (Ichi: ¶ 131, 132, 156-168: system determines which of two modes of operation direct the switching process based on differing clock frequencies). The claim is considered obvious over Ichi as modified by Vesa as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ichi and/or Vesa to the modified device of Ichi and Vesa; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 12—the claim is considered to recite substantially similar subject matter to that of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 13
Ichi teaches:
A display (Ichi: Abstract: 84-86; Fig 1, 5: a display device serves as an HDMI sink, receives streams, etc. such as embodied upon a TV, television, etc.) comprising:
a panel driver circuit configured to drive a display panel based on image data (Ichi: ¶ 3, 90, Fig 5: HDMI, DVI, etc. interfaces are considered examples of circuitry configured to drive a display based on image data); and
circuitry configured to receive a first stream including the image data and audio data from an external device (Ichi: Abstract: 84-86; Fig 1, 5: such as over an HDMI input of the display device, the HDMI stream operable to delivery both image and audio data from an external device),
process the received audio data in synchronization with an audio clock generated based on a link video clock (Ichi: ¶ 126-131, 151-167; Fig 4-6, 10: sink 22sk receives media and clock switching packets from a source such as 12sc, 32-1, processes same such as based on TDMS video clock parameters and CTS parameters such as by regenerating the clock based on the parameters and processing received audio in synchronization therewith),
transmit a second stream including encoded data in synchronization with a carrier clock generated by the reception apparatus based on the generated audio clock to the external device (Ichi: ¶ 126-130, 151-167; Fig 4-6, 10: sink, display device, etc. generates a carrier clock based on the audio clock, transmits second stream to downstream devices said stream comprising clock ratio data), and
receive a command from the external device to switch to the carrier clock generated by the reception apparatus (Ichi: ¶ 126-131, 151-167; Fig 4-6, 10: sink, display device, etc. queries downstream audio amplifying device for a response which establishes the audio amplifying device settings and is interpreted by the display device as a command to switch clock settings),
wherein a process of switching to the carrier clock is determined according to a determined mode of operation (Ichi: ¶ 126-131, 151-167; Fig 4-6, 10: in this way the switch to an auxiliary clock, path thereof is conditioned on determining the operating state settings of the downstream device by which the transmission/reception between devices configures to participate in the transmission based thereon).
Ichi strongly suggests but does not explicitly the device embodied as a television receiver. Ichi does not explicitly teach the exchange of encoded data capable of clock recovery.
In a related field of endeavor Vesa teaches a reception protocol operative upon TV displays, reception apparatus, etc. (Vesa: pp 1, 24; § 1.2, 5.2.2 : a sink device receives a stream, operates to render same such as using a main link; said sink device operative as a TV display comprising a displayport interface which is considered a television receiver ) comprising:
a panel driver circuit configured to drive a display panel based on image data (Vesa: § 1.2 displayport operates to drive a display component of a TV); and
circuitry configured to receive a first stream including audio data from an external device a: pp 29-33; Fig 1-1, 1-2: a first stream such as an isochronous stream comprising audio data is transmitted from a source to a sink device such as in concert with a plurality of rules for correct assembly of the stream in the sink device),
process the received audio data in synchronization with an audio clock generated based on a link video clock (Vesa: § 1.7, 1.7.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.4; Fig 2-8, 2-9, 2-10: sink device processes received stream in concert with an audio clock generated based on a link clock, the link clock based on a video clock generated at the source device);
transmit a second stream including encoded data capable of clock recovery in synchronization with a carrier clock generated by the reception apparatus based on the generated audio clock to the external device (Vesa: § 1.7, 1.7.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.3, 2.2.5.2.1; Fig 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-16, 2-17: sink device processes received stream in concert with an audio clock generated based on a link clock, the link clock based on a video clock generated at the source device and regenerated in the sink such as by use of Maud, Naud, values to determine an audio clock ratio of the video clock, corresponding link clock, etc. based thereon for conducting audio output upon the sink). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize the 8B10B encoded data stream including audio clock recovery values thereof as taught or suggested by Vesa to improve recovery of a clock based on receiving an initiation of clock recovery as taught or suggested by Ichi for at least the purpose of recovering and regenerating a clock based on embedded, stream borne clock recovery data such as for driving a display of a TV receiver; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 14
Ichi in view of Vesa teaches or suggests:
The television receiver according to claim 13, wherein the display panel includes at least a one of a liquid crystal display (LCD) or an organic electroluminescence (EL) display (Ichi: ¶ 3, 90, Fig 5 an LCD and/or EL display and attendant driver). The claim is considered obvious over Ichi as modified by Vesa as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ichi and/or Vesa to the modified device of Ichi and Vesa; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 15
Ichi in view of Vesa teaches or suggests:
The television receiver according to claim 13, further comprising: a digital tuner configured to process a television broadcast signal input from an antenna terminal. Examiner takes official notice that digital communication channels and attendant tuners, antenna, etc. for processing broadcast signals were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention and would have comprised an obvious inclusion for the purpose of receiving and utilizing a particular digital data stream, broadcast, etc. The claim is considered obvious over Ichi as modified by Vesa as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ichi and/or Vesa to the modified device of Ichi and Vesa; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 16
Ichi in view of Vesa teaches or suggests:
The television receiver according to claim 13, further comprising: a speaker (Ichi: ¶ 82: system outputs audio using a speaker); (Vesa: § 2.1.3, 2.1.4: system comprises a speaker for audio output). The claim is considered obvious over Ichi as modified by Vesa as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ichi and/or Vesa to the modified device of Ichi and Vesa; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 17
Ichi in view of Vesa teaches or suggests:
The television receiver according to claim 13, wherein the circuitry is further configured to receive a remote control signal (Ichi: ¶ 104: system operates using a protocol for exchange of received device control signals from a remote control); (Vesa: § 1.2.5: system operates to convey remote control commands among source and sink devices. The claim is considered obvious over Ichi as modified by Vesa as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ichi and/or Vesa to the modified device of Ichi and Vesa; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Regarding claim 18
Ichi in view of Vesa teaches or suggests:
The television receiver according to claim 13, wherein the circuitry is further configured to perform scaling processing. Examiner takes official notice that the performance of scaling processing of broadcast signals was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention and would have comprised an obvious inclusion for the purpose of receiving and utilizing a particular digital data stream, broadcast, etc. by adjusting presentation and resolution parameters thereof. The claim is considered obvious over Ichi as modified by Vesa as addressed in the base claim as it would have been obvious to apply the further teaching of Ichi and/or Vesa to the modified device of Ichi and Vesa; one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected only predictable results therefrom.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL C MCCORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3701. The examiner can normally be reached 730-630 M-F.
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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-7136. 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.
/PAUL C MCCORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights