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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 as filed on 11/15/2024 are pending and herewith considered as indicated below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the aperture (as used in claims 5 and 6) must be shown and labelled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 5-6, 14-16, 18 and 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.
In regards to Claim 5, “the side of the support pole” as recited in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “the side of the support pole” is intended to recite “a side of the support pole”.
In regards to Claim 6, “the side of the support pole” as recited in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “the side of the support pole” is intended to recite “a side of the support pole”.
In regards to Claim 14, “the helical reinforcing fibre” as recited in lines 1 and 3 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “the helical reinforcing fibre” is intended to recite “the one reinforcing fibre”.
In regards to Claim 15, “the pole” as recited in line 2 twice lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “the pole” is intended to recite “the support pole”.
In regards to Claim 15, “the longitudinal parallel arrangement” as recited in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “the longitudinal parallel arrangement” is intended to recite “the longitudinally parallel arrangement”.
In regards to Claim 18, “the length” as recited in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “the length” is intended to recite “a length”.
In regards to Claim 20, “helical reinforcing fibre” as recited in lines 10 and 11-12 lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears “helical reinforcing fibre” is intended to recite “The one reinforcing fibre”.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haveland (US-20190136565 A1) in view of Zheng-Xin WU (CN-2386128-Y) (Herein WU) and RIM HYO JIN (KR-20210013780)(Herein Jin).
In regards to Claim 1, Haveland discloses
A support pole (2) [Fig 1] extending along a longitudinal axis [Fig 2a, showing
Longitudinal Axis], the support pole (2) [Fig 1] comprising:
a plurality of split lengths (14) [Figs 6a-6c] of at least one of: bamboo and a tubular
plant material [Abstract] in a longitudinally parallel arrangement [0071] extending along the longitudinal axis [Fig 2a, showing Longitudinal Axis];
a matrix material (8) [Fig 6b] that encapsulates [0071] [Abstract] the plurality of split lengths (14) [Figs 6a-6c] and the hollow complete tube (2, middle tube, WU) [Fig 1] (See below for modification).
However, Haveland fails to disclose
a cable inlet;
a cable outlet; and
a hollow complete tube of at least one of: bamboo and the tubular plant material extending within the longitudinally parallel arrangement to provide a cable route from the cable inlet to the cable outlet; and
Furthermore, WU discloses
a hollow complete tube (2, middle tube) [Fig 1] of at least one of: bamboo and [Page 2 of Translated Document, Under Example 1, “bamboo 2 are bundled into a beam,”] the tubular plant material extending [ Page 2 of Translated Document, Under Example 1, length determination, “if raw bamboo 2 its length, by means of lapping is bound into a whole beam”] within the longitudinally parallel arrangement [0071, Haveland].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support pole by Haveland to further include a hollow complete tube of at least one of: bamboo and the tubular plant material extending within the longitudinally parallel arrangement as disclosed by WU. When modified, the hollow complete tube with all limitations allows for weight reduction, ease of handling, and enhanced durability and corrosion resistance.
Furthermore, Jin discloses
a cable inlet (21) [Fig 6];
a cable outlet (22) [Fig 6]; and
provide a cable route (23) [Fig 6] from the cable inlet (21) [Fig 6] to the cable outlet (22) [Fig 6];
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support pole by Haveland to further include a cable inlet; a cable outlet; and a cable route from the cable inlet to the cable outlet as disclosed by Jin. When modified, the cable inlet and outlet with the addition of providing a cable route allows for cabling routing and protection [see Jin Page 5 of Translated Document “A communication pole capable of protecting a cable in an inner space of a pole, characterized in that one or more cable outlets are formed so that a communication cable passes through the body of the integrated pole on one side of the upper part.”]
In regards to Claim 2, Haveland as modified discloses
The support pole (2) [Fig 1] of claim 1
Wu discloses,
wherein the hollow complete tube (2, middle tube) [Fig 1] consists of at least one of: a single cane of bamboo [See Translated Document, Page 2, Under Example 1 “if raw bamboo 2 its length, by means of lapping is bound into a whole beam according to length of the telegraph pole”] and the tubular plant material.
In Regards to Claim 3, Haveland as modified discloses
The support pole (2) [Fig 1] of claim 1
WU, discloses
wherein the hollow complete tube (2, middle tube) [Fig 1] comprises at least one of: a plurality of canes of bamboo [See Translated Document, Page 2, Under Example 1 “if raw bamboo 2 its length, by means of lapping is bound into a whole beam according to length of the telegraph pole”] and a plurality of the tubular plant material that are joined [“Lapping”, Page 2 of Translated Document] together.
In regards to Claim 4, Haveland as modified discloses
The support pole (2) [Fig 1] of claim 1, wherein the cable inlet (21, Jin) [Fig 6] is formed at an end [Fig 6, Bottom End, Jin] of the support pole (2) [Fig 1] and the cable outlet (22) [Fig 6] is formed at an opposite end [Fig 6, Top End] of the support pole (2) [Fig 1] to the cable inlet (21) [Fig 6].
In regards to Claim 5, Haveland as modified discloses
The support pole (2) [Fig 1] of claim 1, wherein the cable inlet (21, Jin) [Fig 6] comprises an inlet tube (61, Jin) [Fig 6] that leads from an aperture [Unnumbered, Fig 7 Jin] (see examiners comment) in the side of the support pole (2) [Fig 1] to the hollow complete tube (2, middle tube, WU) [Fig 1].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support pole by Haveland to further include an inlet tube that leads from an aperture in the side of the support pole to the hollow complete tube as disclosed by Jin. When modified, the cable inlet with all limitations allows for securing and protecting the cable.
In regards to Claim 7, Haveland as modified discloses
The support pole (2) [Fig 1] of claim 1,
Wu discloses
wherein the support pole (2, Haveland) [Fig 1] comprises one or more additional hollow complete tubes (2, middle tube) [Fig 1] [See Page 2 of Translated Document, “the bamboo 2 are bundled into a beam, the middle can be hollow, also can set a large-diameter raw bamboo to centre, length determination, if raw bamboo 2 its length, by means of lapping is bound into a whole beam”] of at least one of: bamboo [Page 2 of Translated Document, Under Example 1, “bamboo 2 are bundled into a beam, the middle can be hollow, also can set a large-diameter raw bamboo to centre”] and the tubular plant material extending [As disclosed on Page 2 of Translated Document, Under Example 1] within the longitudinally parallel arrangement [0071, Haveland].
Additionally, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify hollow complete tubes of WU to have one or more additional hollow complete tubes in order to facilitate ease of procurement and installation on site. When modified, create a post of one or more additional hollow complete tubes eases the procurement process and installation regulations on site. In general, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
In regards to Claim 8, Haveland as modified discloses
The support pole (2) [Fig 1] of claim 7, wherein the one or more additional hollow complete tubes [See Translated Document, Page 2, Under Example 1 “if raw bamboo 2 its length, by means of lapping is bound into a whole beam according to length of the telegraph pole”, Wu] provide one or more additional cable routes (23, one cable route, Jin) [Fig 6].
In regards to Claim 9, Haveland as modified discloses
The support pole (2) [Fig 1] of claim 1,
Wu discloses,
wherein the hollow complete tube (2, middle tube) [Fig 1] is located centrally [Page 2 of Translated Document, Under Example 1, “bamboo 2 are bundled into a beam, the middle can be hollow, also can set a large-diameter raw bamboo to centre”] within the longitudinally parallel arrangement [0071, Haveland].
In regards to Claim 10, Haveland as modified discloses
The support pole (2) [Fig 1] of claim 1.
However, Haveland fails to disclose
wherein the hollow complete tube is located off-centre within the longitudinally parallel arrangement.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify hollow complete tube of WU to located off-centre within the longitudinally parallel arrangement in order to allow for secure stabilization, moving the hollow complete tube from the center of gravity of the support pole and offsetting the weight of the matrix material. It has been held that rearrangement of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019.
In regards to Claim 11, Haveland as modified discloses
The support pole (2) [Fig 1] of claim 1, comprising an outer tube (4) [Fig 1] that contains the plurality of split lengths (14) [Figs 6a-6c], the hollow complete tube (2, middle tube, WU) [Fig 1] and the matrix material (8) [Fig 6b].
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haveland (US-20190136565 A1) in view of Zheng-Xin WU (CN-2386128-Y) (Herein WU) and RIM HYO JIN (KR-20210013780)(Herein Jin) and Christopher Carter (AU-2018204911-A1)(Herein Carter).
In regards to Claim 6, Haveland as modified discloses
The support pole (2) [Fig 1] of claim 1.
However, Haveland fails to disclose
wherein the cable outlet comprises an outlet tube that leads from an aperture in the side of the support pole to the hollow complete tube.
Furthermore, Carter discloses
wherein the cable outlet (22, Haveland) [Fig 6] comprises an outlet tube (86) [Fig 8A] that leads from an aperture [Aperture extending out, Fig 8] in the side of the support pole (2) [Fig 1] to the hollow complete tube (2, middle tube, WU) [Fig 1].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support pole by Haveland to further include an outlet tube that leads from an aperture in the side of the support pole to the hollow complete tube as disclosed by Carter. When modified, the cable inlet with all limitations allows for securing and protecting the cable.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify support post of haveland to have a outlet tube (as disclosed in Jin, “Inlet tube”, (61)) in order to protect the cable in the cable route when exiting the pole. In general, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haveland (US-20190136565 A1) in view of Zheng-Xin WU (CN-2386128-Y) (Herein WU) and RIM HYO JIN (KR-20210013780)(Herein Jin) and Toshifumi Hashiba (WO-2024135121-A1)(Herein Hashiba).
In regards to Claim 12, Haveland as modified discloses
The support pole (2) [Fig 1] of claim 1.
However, Haveland fails to disclose
wherein the matrix material comprises at least one of: bio-based polyurethane and a recycled polyurethane.
Furthermore, Hashiba discloses
Wherein the matrix material (8, Haveland) [Fig 6b] comprising at least one of: a bio-based polyurethane [see Hashiba, Page 15 of Translated Document, “Resins that can be combined with the marine biodegradable polymer particles of the present invention include bio-polyurethane”] [see Hashiba, Page 18 of Translated Document Under “The marine biodegradable polymer particles of the present invention are suitable”] and a recycled polyurethane.
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support pole by Haveland to further include a matrix material comprising at least one of: a bio-based polyurethane and a recycled polyurethane that encapsulates the plurality of split lengths as disclosed by Hashiba. When modified, the matrix material with all limitations (of added hashiba) allows for increased mechanical strength, abrasion resistance, thermal stability, and durability.
Additionally, it has been held that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify matrix material of Haveland to be made of a bio-based polyurethane or a recycled polyurethane in order facilitate durability, flexibility and reducing environmental impact. When modified, the bio-based polyurethane allows for enhanced stability. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haveland (US-20190136565 A1) in view of Zheng-Xin WU (CN-2386128-Y) (Herein WU) and RIM HYO JIN (KR-20210013780)(Herein Jin) and Kenneth Church (WO-1994026501-A1).
In regards to Claim 13, Haveland as modified discloses
The support pole (2) [Fig 1] of claim 1,
However, Haveland fails to disclose
comprising at least one reinforcing fibre wound helically around the longitudinally parallel arrangement.
Furthermore, Church discloses comprising at least one reinforcing fibre (44, 45, 46) [Fig 3] wound helically [Claim 5] around the longitudinally parallel arrangement [0071, Haveland].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support pole as disclosed by Haveland to further include at least one reinforcing polymer fibre wound helically around the longitudinally parallel arrangement as disclosed by Church. When modified, the one reinforcing polymer fibre wound helically around the longitudinal parallel arrangement allow for facilitating structural integrity of the support pole.
In regards to Claim 14, Haveland as modified discloses
The support pole (2) [Fig 1] of claim 13,
Church discloses
wherein the helical reinforcing fibre (44, 45, 46) [Fig 3] extends only within a first section [Unnumbered, Fig 5] (see examiners comment) of the support pole (2, Haveland) [Fig 1] and the support pole (2) [Fig 1] comprises a second section [Unnumbered, Fig 5] (see examiners comment) that is free of helical reinforcing fibre (44, 45, 46) [Fig 3]
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support pole as disclosed by Haveland to further include wherein the helical reinforcing fibre extends only within a first section of the support pole and the support pole comprises a second section that is free of helical reinforcing fibre as disclosed by Church. When modified, the one reinforcing polymer fibre wound helically around the longitudinal parallel arrangement and all limitations allow for facilitating structural integrity of the support pole.
In regards to Claim 15, Haveland as modified discloses
The support pole (2) [Fig 1] of claim 14, wherein the hollow complete tube (2, middle tube, WU) [Fig 1] extends from the first section [Unnumbered, Fig 5, Church] (see examiners comment) of the pole into the second section [Unnumbered, Fig 5, Church] (see examiners comment) of the pole (2) [Fig 1].
In regards to Claim 16, Haveland as modified discloses
The support pole (2) [Fig 1] of claim 14, wherein the longitudinal parallel arrangement [0071, as the longitudinal parallel arrangement includes the reinforcing fibre] extends only in the first section [Unnumbered, Fig 5, Church] (see examiners comment).
In regards to Claim 17, Haveland as modified discloses
The support pole (2) [Fig 1] of claim 13, comprising additional split lengths (14) [Figs 6a-6c] of at least one of: bamboo [0071, “Bamboo Splits”] and the tubular plant material in the second section [Unnumbered, Fig 5, Church] (see examiners comment).
In regards to Claim 18, Haveland as modified discloses
The support pole (2) [Fig 1] of claim 14, wherein the second section [Unnumbered, Fig 5] (see examiners comment) makes up less than half [As shown in Fig 5, Church] of the length of the support pole (2) [Fig 1].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haveland (US-20190136565 A1) in view of Toshifumi Hashiba (WO-2024135121-A1)(Herein Hashiba).
In regards to Claim 19, Haveland discloses
A support pole (2) [Fig 1] extending along a longitudinal axis [Fig 2a, showing
Longitudinal Axis], the support pole (2) [Fig 1] comprising:
a plurality of split lengths (14) [Figs 6a-6c] of at least one of: bamboo and a tubular plant material [Abstract] in a longitudinally parallel arrangement [0071] extending along the longitudinal axis [Fig 2a, showing Longitudinal Axis]; and
However, Haveland fails to explicitly disclose
a matrix material comprising at least one of: a bio-based polyurethane and a recycled polyurethane that encapsulates.
Furthermore, Hashiba discloses
a matrix material (8, Haveland) [Fig 6b] comprising at least one of: a bio-based polyurethane [see Hashiba, Page 15 of Translated Document, “Resins that can be combined with the marine biodegradable polymer particles of the present invention include bio-polyurethane”] [see Hashiba, Page 18 of Translated Document Under “The marine biodegradable polymer particles of the present invention are suitable”] and a recycled polyurethane that encapsulates [0071, Haveland] [Abstract] the plurality of split lengths (14) [Figs 6a-6c].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support pole by Haveland to further include a matrix material comprising at least one of: a bio-based polyurethane and a recycled polyurethane that encapsulates the plurality of split lengths as disclosed by Hashiba. When modified, the matrix material with all limitations (of added hashiba) allows for increased mechanical strength, abrasion resistance, thermal stability, and durability.
Additionally, it has been held that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify matrix material of Haveland to be made of a bio-based polyurethane or a recycled polyurethane in order facilitate durability, flexibility and reducing environmental impact. When modified, the bio-based polyurethane allows for enhanced stability. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haveland (US-20190136565 A1) in view of Kenneth Church (WO-1994026501-A)(Herein Church).
In regards to Claim 20, Haveland discloses
A support pole (2) [Fig 1] extending along a longitudinal axis [Fig 2a, showing
Longitudinal Axis], the support pole (2) [Fig 1] comprising:
a plurality of split lengths (14) [Figs 6a-6c] of at least one of: bamboo and a tubular plant material [Abstract] in a longitudinally parallel arrangement [0071] extending along the longitudinal axis [Fig 2a, showing Longitudinal Axis];
a matrix material (8) [Fig 6b] that encapsulates [0071] [Abstract] the plurality of split lengths (14) [Figs 6a-6c] and the at least one reinforcing polymer fibre (44, 45, 46, Church) [Fig 3] (see below for modification);
However, Haveland fails to disclose
at least one reinforcing polymer fibre wound helically around the longitudinally parallel arrangement; and
wherein the helical reinforcing fibre extends only within a first section of the support pole and the support pole comprises a second section that is free of helical reinforcing fibre.
Furthermore, Church discloses
at least one reinforcing polymer fibre (44, 45, 46) [Fig 3] wound helically [Claim 5] around the longitudinally parallel arrangement [0071, Haveland]; and
wherein the helical reinforcing fibre (44, 45, 46) [Fig 3] extends only within a first section [Unnumbered, Fig 5] (see examiners comment) of the support pole (2, Haveland) [Fig 1] and the support pole (2, Haveland) [Fig 1] comprises a second [Unnumbered, Fig 5] (see examiners comment) section that is free of helical reinforcing fibre (44, 45, 46) [Fig 3].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support pole as disclosed by Haveland to further include at least one reinforcing polymer fibre wound helically around the longitudinally parallel arrangement; and wherein the helical reinforcing fibre extends only within a first section of the support pole and the support pole comprises a second section that is free of helical reinforcing fibre as disclosed by Church. When modified, the one reinforcing polymer fibre wound helically around the longitudinal parallel arrangement and all limitations allow for facilitating structural integrity of the support pole.
PNG
media_image1.png
885
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiners comment
Church, Figure 5
PNG
media_image2.png
806
705
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jin, Figure 7
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA K. AL-ASWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-6335. The examiner can normally be reached M through F 7:30 to 5PM.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
/Z.K.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights