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 statements (IDSes) submitted on October 22, 2024 and July 24, 2026 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 19, 25-26, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Doom et al. US 2014/0141135 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 22, 2024).
Regarding Claim 19, van Doom et al. discloses a method for moulding products from food mass. The method comprises moving a molding cavity (moulding cavities 44) which is a part of a mould member (mold member 16) (‘135, Paragraph [0047]) past a feed channel (passage 34) that fills the mould cavity (moulding cavities 44) with the food mass wherein the feed channel (passage 34) is connected to a feed pump that pumps the food mass through the feed channel (passage 34) into the mould cavity (moulding cavities 44) (‘135, FIG. 2) (‘135, Paragraphs [0035]-[0036], [0052], and [0057]). A position of the moulding cavity (moulding cavities 44) is determined and/or detected relative to the feed channel (passage 34) (‘135, Paragraph [0067]) and a pressure of the feed pump is controlled according to a desired set pressure (‘135, Paragraphs [0077]-[0078]). The filling of the mould cavity (mould cavities 44) with the food mass is partially carried out by controlling the pressure of the feed pump (‘135, Paragraph [0077]) and partially controlling a displaced volume of the feed pump and/or a flow rate (adjustable volumetric flow of volume per unit time) of the feed pump (‘135, Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding Claim 25, Van Doom et al. discloses a volumetric flow rate being controlled during the filling of the mould cavity with the food mass (‘135, Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding Clam 26, Van Doom et al. discloses the volumetric flow rate not being constant during the filling of the mould cavity with the food mass (volumetric flow during filling varies) (‘135, Paragraph [0074]).
Regarding Claim 31, Van Doom et al. discloses the volumetric flow rate being automatically adjusted to a speed of movement of the mold member (‘135, Paragraph [0073]).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Doom et al. US 2014/0141135 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 22, 2024).
Regarding Claim 20, van Doom et al. discloses the mold cavity being first filled with the food mass by controlling via a control unit comprising an input device for inputting the volume of the foodstuff to be transferred by pumping, i.e. volume of the mold cavity, and the predetermined pressure (‘135m, Paragraph [0042]). Van Doom et al. is silent regarding the order in which the feed pump is controlled to be the flow rate of the feed pump followed by the pressure of the feed pump. However, van Doom et al. discloses controlling both the flow rate as well as the pressure of the feed pump. The selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results in view of In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.C.). The food mass would be filled using the pump irrespective of the order in which the feed pump controls the flow rate of the feed pump relative to the pressure of the feed pump.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Doom et al. US 2014/0141135 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 22, 2024) as applied to claim 19 above in view of Melendijks et al. US 2015/0044335 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 22, 2024).
Regarding Claim 21, Van Doom et al. is silent regarding the desired set pressure to fill the mold cavity with the food mass and then decreased after the mold cavity has been filled with the food mass based on the position of the mold cavity relative to the feed channel.
Meulendijks et al. discloses a method of moulding products from a mass of foodstuff (‘335, Paragraph [0014]) comprising moving a mould cavity which is part of a mould member past a feed channel that fills the mass into the mould cavity wherein the feed channel is connected to a feed pump that pumps the mass through the feed channel into the mould cavity wherein the desired set pressure is increased according to a ramp based on the position of the mould cavity relative to the feed channel to fill the mould cavity with the mass and then decreasing the desired set pressure according to a ramp based on the position of the mould cavity relative to the feed channel while the mould cavity is filled and reducing the desired set pressure to zero as soon as the end of the mould cavity has passed the beginning of the feed channel while at least a section of the mould cavity remains aligned with the feed channel (‘335, Paragraphs [0024] and [0106]) wherein the desired set pressure is decreased to zero after the mould cavity is filled with the food mass (‘335, Paragraph [0105]).
Both Van Doom et al. and Meulendjiks et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of moulding products from a mass of foodstuff. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Van Doom et al. and increase the desired set pressure to fill the mold cavity with the mold cavity with the food mass and then decreased after the mold cavity has been filled with the food mass based on the position of the mold cavity relative to the feed channel as taught by Meulendjiks et al. in order to allow the pump to restore the mass pressure in the chamber (‘335, Paragraph [0024]).
Further regarding Claim 21, the limitations “and then decreased while” are optional limitations by virtue of the word “or.” Since the prior art combination teaches the limitations “after the mold cavity has been filled with the food mass,” the prior art combination is not required to teach the limitations “and then decreased while” preceding the word “or.”
Regarding Claims 22-23, Van Doom et al. is silent regarding the desired set pressure being increased and/or decreased according to a ramp.
Meulendijks et al. discloses a method of moulding products from a mass of foodstuff (‘335, Paragraph [0014]) comprising moving a mould cavity which is part of a mould member past a feed channel that fills the mass into the mould cavity wherein the feed channel is connected to a feed pump that pumps the mass through the feed channel into the mould cavity wherein the desired set pressure is increased according to a ramp based on the position of the mould cavity relative to the feed channel to fill the mould cavity with the mass and then decreasing the desired set pressure according to a ramp based on the position of the mould cavity relative to the feed channel while the mould cavity is filled and reducing the desired set pressure to zero as soon as the end of the mould cavity has passed the beginning of the feed channel while at least a section of the mould cavity remains aligned with the feed channel (‘335, Paragraphs [0024] and [0106]) wherein the desired set pressure is decreased to zero after the mould cavity is filled with the food mass (‘335, Paragraph [0105]).
Both Van Doom et al. and Meulendjiks et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of moulding products from a mass of foodstuff. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Van Doom et al. and increase the desired set pressure according to a ramp based on the position of the mould cavity relative to the feed channel to fill the mould cavity with the mass and then decrease the desired set pressure according to a ramp based on the position of the mould cavity relative to the feed channel while the mould cavity is filled and reducing the desired set pressure to zero as soon as the end of the mould cavity has passed the beginning of the feed channel while at least a section of the mould cavity remains aligned with the feed channel as taught by Meulendjiks et al. in order to allow the pump to restore the mass pressure in the chamber (‘335, Paragraph [0024]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Van Doom et al. and decrease the desired set pressure to zero after the mould cavity is filled with the food mass as taught by Meulendjiks et al. in order to drop below the target pressure range (‘335, Paragraphs [0104]-[0106]).
Regarding Claim 24, Meulendjiks et al. discloses the desired set pressure being maintained above zero after the mould cavity is filled with the food mass (pump is slowed to drop below the target pressure range (‘335, Paragraphs [0015] and [0105]).
Claims 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Doom et al. US 2014/0141135 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 22, 2024) as applied to claim 19 or claim 25 above in further view of Levine US 2012/0308409.
Regarding Claim 27, Van Doom et al. discloses using a pressure sensor for detecting the pressure of the foodstuff in the mold cavity and/or the dispensing mouth (‘135, Paragraph [0028]) and a position sensor for determining and/or detecting positions (‘135, Paragraph [0067]). However, van Doom et al. is silent regarding the volumetric flow rate of the food mass being controlled based on the volume of the food mass to be delivered for one cavity and on a desired offset of the filling of the mold cavity.
Levine discloses a method for processing products wherein the method comprises using a feed pump that pumps a mass of material connected to a fluid flow meter (‘409, Paragraph [0055]), controlling a pressure of the feed pump according to a desired set pressure using a pressure sensor (‘409,. Paragraph [0084]), and controlling a displaced volume of the feed pump and a flow rate of the feed pump (‘409, Paragraph [0219]). Levine also discloses the volumetric flow rate of the food mass being controlled based on the volume of the food mass to be delivered for one cavity and on a desired offset of the filling of the mold cavity (‘409, Paragraphs [0057] and [0219]).
Both Van Doom et al. and Levine are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of using a feed pump to pump a pumpable mass. Both pumps of van Doom et al. and Levine contain pressure sensors to measure the pressure imparted by the pump. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of van Doom et al. and control the volumetric flow rate of the food mass based on the volume of the food mass to be delivered for one cavity and on a desired offset of the filling of the mold cavity as taught by Levine in order to accurately meter fluid via the pump (‘409, Paragraph [0252]) in an efficient manner by adjusting the volumetric flow rate of the pumpable mass.
Regarding Claims 28-29, van Doom et al. discloses an already delivered volume of mass being measured at least once during filling(via a fluid level sensor) (‘409, Paragraphs [0212] and [0214]) and the volumetric flow rate of the mass being adjusted based upon the measured volume (‘409, Paragraph [0215]).
Both Van Doom et al. and Levine are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of using a feed pump to pump a pumpable mass. Both pumps of van Doom et al. and Levine contain pressure sensors to measure the pressure imparted by the pump. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of van Doom et al. and measure an already delivered volume of mass at least once during filling and adjusting the volumetric flow rate of the mass based upon the measured volume as taught by Levine in order to meter fluid via the pump to the desired volume in an efficient manner by adjusting the volumetric flow rate of the pumpable mass.
Regarding Claim 30, Levine discloses a level sensor sending a signal to a control circuit indicating the volume of an amount of fluid in a reservoir outlet connected to the pump (‘409, Paragraph [0214]). Levine also discloses adjusting the volumetric flow rate of the mass (‘409, Paragraphs [0215] and [0219]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of van Doom et al. and adjust the volumetric flow rate of the mass after the mold cavity is filled to a certain percentage as suggested by the combination of the level sensor and adjusted flow rate dispensed by the pump of Levine in order to efficiently dispense the pumpable mass to the desired volume.
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 19-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,412,773. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-19 of the ‘773 patent reads on Claims 19-31 of the instant application.
Claims 19-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,150,470. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-5 of the ‘470 patent reads on Claims 19-31 of the instant application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goldman et al. US 2014/0373969 discloses a high speed beverage container filling system (‘969, Paragraph [0001]) comprising a pump having an adjustable flow rate as desired by changing the position of the pump head (‘969, Paragraph [0030]).
Pallota et al. US 2013/0219827 discloses a method and apparatus for filling dose packages for consumer products (‘827, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the package contains liquids or pastes (‘827, Paragraph [0042]) of food products such as ketchup or mayonnaise (‘827, Paragraph [0043]) wherein the apparatus comprises a nozzle having an actuator system to provide fast response, positive on/off control of the liquid which actuator system comprises any suitable device such as a positive displacement pump wherein the nozzle actuator system is connected to a flow measurement device such as a flow meter of a volumetric flow meter to provide accurate acquisition of each sample mass or volume of fluid which flow meter communicates with the pump and is used to allow timely mass or volume totalization and nozzle control of each mass or volume fill as well as for the level of air cap pressure control (‘827, Paragraph [0085]) wherein an input device obtains data from the flow meter and actual flow quantity if calculated in a PLC that receives a flow feedback quantity to compare against the desired set point to generate an error and uses that to calculate the corrective action such as a new control actuation time (‘827, Paragraph [0086]) wherein an algorithm associated with the PLC receives the measured fill quantity feedback as an input and makes corrective adjustments which data from the PLC computes adjustments to time of fill and a control adjustment to the total flow and flow rate profile of a positive displacement pump for each fill cycle (‘827, Paragraph [0087]).
Knowlton et al. US 2012/0021107 discloses a method and apparatus for produce processing (‘107, Paragraph [0007]) comprising a packing device comprising a pump that controls the flow rate of a liquid which flow rate is adjusted based on the package size and the amount of liquid to be packaged in a given time (‘107, Paragraph [0017]).
Roebuck US 2006/0237094 discloses an automated system for dispensing fluid commodities which system executes a timed sequence of events defining a fill cycle (‘094, Paragraph [0001]) to dispenses a controlled measure of fluid stock without close monitoring or intervention by operators (‘094, Paragraph [0003]) wherein the fluid stock is a liquid such as milk of sauces or other viscous substance (‘094, Paragraph [0078]) wherein flow adjusters such as mechanical constrictors and timed flow adjusters are provided in at least some of the flow paths for adjusting the fluid flow to the desired controlled measure wherein the flow adjust mechanism on at least some of the flow constrictors limit the distribution of flow rate to less than the maximum pump rate (‘094, Paragraph [0077])
Navarro US 2005/0173019 discloses an automated apparatus for high speed delivery of precisely measured quantities of a variety of viscous liquid materials having varying characteristics to a plurality of containers in a sanitary environment (‘019, Paragraph [0002]) in the food processing industry (‘019, Paragraph [0071]) wherein an actuator displaces a piston body from an upward or first position which draws a predetermined volume of the viscous liquid material into the chamber via negative pressure created therein wherein the regulator body adjusts the flow rate of the liquid material by reducing and/or increasing the flow area into a chamber to vary temperature, viscosity, density, pumping pressure wherein the actuator device imparts a driving force sufficient to displace the piston downwardly into a second position to cause the viscous liquid to be disposed into a respective container once the predetermined volume of viscous liquid material enters the chamber (‘019, Paragraph [0104]).
Navarro US 2004/0016475 discloses a method and apparatus for filling containers such as bottles and can with liquid food products having different viscosities such as beverages and jellies (‘475, Paragraph [0002]) wherein liquid food product is drawn into the rear portion of the pump cylinder bore during forward motion of the piston while liquid food product in the front portion of the bore is expelled through the front cylinder port and increased pump pressure is required for pumping substantially viscous liquid food products by applying greater actuation force on the piston rod by the external actuator and decreases and increases in pumping flow rates are achieved by decreasing and increasing the piston stroke length between front and rear travel limits and/or by decreasing or increasing the actuator reciprocation rate (‘475, Paragraph [0029]).
Ellison US 6,276,409 discloses a combination container feed an in line filler system adapted for food packaging wherein each filler includes a flow rate control valve actuated by an adjustment know for controlling the fate of filling in all filling methodologies useful in volumetric filling where control of flow rate is critical and by adjusting the valves for a particular flow rate at a given pressure volumetric filling can be done.
Flynn et al. US 2014/0031784 discloses an enteral fluid delivery system comprising a pump connected to a processor for adjusting the flow rate of the pump to deliver the selected enteral fluid for proper caloric delivery based on the viscosity or the caloric content of the selected enteral fluid (‘784, Paragraph [0005]) wherein the processor adjusts the flow rate of the enteral feeding pump to achieve the target feeding rate which controller terminates upon instruction from the user upon delivering a user defined volume of the feeding fluid to be delivered (‘784, Paragraph [0041]).
Leppanen US 2015/0118072 discloses a liquid pumping system including a liquid transfer pump arrangement including a liquid inlet port, a liquid discharge port, a first pump chamber with a first maximum volume, and a hydraulic fluid constant flow pump and a control structure responsive to liquid flow rates from each pump chamber directing hydraulic fluid to the first and second control devices, the liquid expelled from the first pump chamber through a non return valve at a controlled delivery rate to the liquid discharge port (‘072, Paragraphs [0009]-[0014]).
Brudevold et al. US 2006/0292012 discloses a beverage forming system including a beverage forming apparatus including a pump adapted to cause liquid to flow from a first location to a second location and a controller associated with the system adapted to control the pump to operated based on an operation index to deliver a predetermined volume of liquid from the first location to the second location wherein an operation index represents the pump ability to provide a volume flow rate for a given voltage supplied to the pump (‘012, Paragraph [0006]) wherein if the voltage supplied to the pump varies the controller adjusts the operation time to ensure that the pump provides a suitable volume of liquid (‘012, Paragraph [0007]) wherein the controller determines an operation time for the pump to operate to provide the predetermined volume, the pump is then operated for the operation time and stopped (‘012, Paragraph [0021]).
Banister US 2004/0234401 discloses a pump moving a fluid at a controlled rate wherein the rate at which the fluid flows depends on the rate of actuator activation and volume displaced by each actuator (‘401, Paragraph [0016]) wherein a combination of multiple actuators are activated at the same time to displace a greater volume of fluid and increase flow rate (‘401, Paragraph [0053]).
Albertin et al. US 5,634,777 discloses a plurality of pumps having independent control of widely varying flow rates and pressure requirements.
Van Bork US 5,056,036 discloses a computer controlled metering pump monitored using a position sensor connected to a piston wherein a control computer receives the sensor signal as well as a desired pumping volume rate which pumped volume is continuously monitored by the computer as a function of the piston displacement and compared with the desired rate wherein the metering pump is controlled to bring the pumped volume rate into agreement with the desired volumetric pumping.
The prior art made of record, cited on a previous Information Disclosure Statement, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van Cruyssen US 5,402,711 discloses a device comprising a rotation shaft actuated by an electric motor having an adjustable rotary speed and a pressure vessel for pressing kneadable material under pressure into a supply duct and a means for adjusting the flow rate through the supply duct.
Bernard US 4,195,489 discloses a pump communicating with a pressure gauge to enable the pump to be manually adjusted to maintain the desired pressure and flow rate.
Soper US 6,156,358 discloses a food product molding machine comprising a pressure adjustment of a variable volume pump operating at a set pressure and a pump supplemented by a variable flow control from an accumulator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, EST.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights