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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed 03/19/2025. Claims 1-7 are currently pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted by Applicant is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. They have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
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) are: “Light projecting unit,” “signal processing unit,” and “measuring unit” in claims 1-7.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Light projecting unit: Fig. 1, Ref. 20, including VCSEL array 21 and light source control unit 22, detailed description Para. [0013]; Signal processing unit: Fig. 1, Ref. 32, detailed description Paras. [0014], [0016]- [0017], and [0033]; Measuring unit: Fig. 1, Ref. 40, and Fig. 11, processor 1001 and memory 1002, detailed description Paras. [0012] and [0023]- [0034].
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 § 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 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu et al. (US 20180259645 A1, “Shu”) in view of Olivier Bulteel (US 20190326347 A1, “Bulteel”) and Osamu Ozawa (US 20220026541 A1, “Ozawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Shu teaches a distance measuring apparatus ([0002], [0069]) comprising:
a light projecting unit configured to project a light projection pulse to a measurement target region (Shu [0069] teaches transmitting one or more light pulses 249 from light transmission module 240 to objects in a field of view. Shu [0070] teaches that Tx module 240 includes emitter array 242 and Tx optical system 244, and the emitters are examples of laser sources. See also, Fig. 4);
a light receiving unit including a plurality of light receiving element groups and a signal processing unit (Shu [0071] teaches that Rx module 230 includes sensor array 236, which may be a one- or two-dimensional array of photosensors, each photosensor including a collection of photodetectors such as SPADs. Shu [0072] teaches that the sensor array may be part of a monolithic device including an array of photon detectors and ASIC 231 for signal processing raw histograms. See also, fig. 4),
the plurality of light receiving element groups corresponding to respective pixels (Shu [0071] teaches that each micro-optic receiver channel measures light corresponding to an image pixel in a distinct field of view, and that each sensor, such as a collection of SPADs, may correspond to a particular emitter. ) and each including a predetermined number of light receiving elements (Shu [0071] teaches that each photosensor includes a collection of photodetectors, e.g., SPADs. Shu [0130] also gives examples of multiple SPADs per pixel, such as 16 or 32 SPADs. See also, fig. 4), the predetermined number of light receiving elements being each configured to receive reflection light that is the light projection pulse reflected by an object in the measurement target region (Shu [0069] teaches that light pulses are transmitted to objects in the field of view and reflected portions of the transmitted light are detected by the light sensing module after a delay time. Shu [0071] teaches the Rx module has a sensor array of photosensors/photodetectors/SPADs. See also, fig. 4); and
a measuring unit configured to perform distance measurement for each of the pixels on a basis of a time difference between a light projection timing of the light projection pulse and a light reception timing of the reflection light (Shu [0069] teaches that reflected portions are detected after a delay time, and based on the delay time the distance to the reflecting surface is determined. Shu [0072] teaches accumulating counts over successive time bins to recreate a time series of the reflected light pulse and using signal processing to identify return signals in time.).
Shu fails to explicitly teach wherein the signal processing unit is configured to detect, for each of the pixels, a fall timing at which a value of a response waveform generated depending on a number of light receiving elements responding to the reflection light among the predetermined number of light receiving elements becomes less than or equal to a threshold after exceeding the threshold,
the measuring unit is configured to decide a timing earlier than the detected fall timing by a response time of the predetermined number of light receiving elements as the light reception timing, and
the response time is a setting value serving as a dead time of the predetermined number of light receiving elements or time based on the setting value.
Shu [0111] measures the number of photodetectors triggered during each time bin and [0112]- [0113] state that the histogram vertical axis is the number of triggered SPADs and that the detected reflected pulse counts may exceed a threshold that discriminates the reflected pulse from background. Shu [0128] - [0132] further describes the waveform as a function of the number of fired SPADs over time, including a sharp rise followed by a decline back toward background.
Shu, however, does not explicitly teach detecting a falling-threshold timing and determining the light reception timing by shifting the detected fall timing earlier by a response time that is a setting value serving as a dead time of the light receiving elements or a time based on that setting value.
Bulteel [0027]- [0030] teaches requiring a threshold number of simultaneously responding SPADs, for example, two or three overlapping SPAD pulses, to generate a timing signal, with the timing signal terminating when the required overlap is no longer present. Thus, Bulteel teaches a falling edge corresponding to termination of the detector response. Bulteel [0031] identifies t2 as the falling edge of the generated timing pulse and teaches that the photon arrival time is obtained as t2-TWIN. Bulteel therefore teaches determining the light reception timing by shifting the detected falling edge timing earlier by a known detector response duration. Bulteel [0041] similarly teaches calculating the time at which the avalanche photodiode received the light by subtracting a fixed pulse duration interval from the falling edge timing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shu according to Bulteel because Bulteel teaches that measuring the falling edge and accounting for the known response duration permits the actual photon arrival time to be determined. See Bulteel [0031], [0041]. Such modification would predictably provide more accurate determination of photon reception timing for time-of-flight distance measurement.
Shu, in view of Bulteel, still does not explicitly teach that the response time used for the falling edge correction is a setting value serving as the dead time of the light receiving elements or a time based on that setting value.
Ozawa [0049] teaches that photon arrival initiates a SPAD output pulse having pulse width T, and [0050] identifies the period during which the SPAD cannot respond to a subsequent photon as the SPAD dead time DT. Ozawa [0053]-[0054] further relates SPAD recovery, dead time DT, and output pulse duration, and [0058]-[0061] teaches delaying the SPAD output by a predetermined amount and performing recharge after a desired time corresponding to the delay, thereby controlling the SPAD recovery/dead-time interval. Ozawa [0078] further teaches that control portion 71 sets the amount of delay of delay circuit 62 according to a lookup table and thereby establishes the desired dead time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Shu according to Ozawa because Ozawa teaches controlling the SPAD recharge timing using a predetermined delay and setting the delay to realize a desired dead time. See Ozawa [0058]- [0061], [0078]. Such modification would predictably provide improved control over SPAD recovery and dead time, thereby improving detector availability and timing control.
Regarding claim 6, Shu, in view of Bulteel and Ozawa, teaches the distance measuring apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined number of light receiving elements are a predetermined number of single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs) (Shu [0096] teaches that each photosensor/pixel is composed of a plurality of photodetectors, whose signals collectively contribute to the measurement for that pixel. Shu [0097] then teaches that each pixel may have a multitude of SPAD units. Thus, the plurality of light-receiving elements associated with each pixel are a plurality/predetermined number of SPADs.),
the light receiving unit includes an active quenching circuit (Shu [0097] teaches that each SPAD may have an analog front-end circuit for biasing, quenching, and recharging. The circuit senses the leading edge of avalanche current, quenches the avalanche by lowering the bias below the breakdown voltage, and thereafter restores the photodiode to its operative level. This operationally teaches an active quenching circuit because the circuit responds to detection of the avalanche by actively changing the applied bias to terminate it) configured to recover an applied voltage up to a predetermined value a predetermined time after occurrence of a breakdown phenomenon brought about by light reception (Shu [0097] teaches restoring the SPAD to its operative voltage after quenching. Ozawa [0058]- [0059] teaches the SPAD output is delayed by a predetermined amount by delay circuit 62, and after the desired delay a recharge operation is performed. Ozawa [0053] further explains that recovery corresponds to the cathode voltage returning toward the power-supply voltage, providing the claimed predetermined recovered voltage.), and
the response time is the setting value serving as the dead time of the predetermined number of SPADs (Ozawa [0053] teaches that the SPAD dead time DT corresponds to the period required for the cathode voltage to recover, during which the SPAD cannot respond to another photon. Ozawa [0078] further teaches that control portion 71 sets the amount of delay of delay circuit 62 according to a lookup table and, based on that setting, realizes the desired/minimum dead time DT. Thus, the delay setting is a setting value serving as or determining the SPAD dead time.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Shu according to Ozawa because Ozawa teaches that controlling the SPAD recharge timing provides greater control over SPAD recovery and permits reduction of the dead time. See Ozawa [0058]- [0061], [0078]. Such modification would predictably improve detector availability and timing control in Shu’s SPAD-based distance-measuring system.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu in view of Bulteel, Ozawa and Zhijian Li et al., “Dead-time-based sequence coding method for single-photon lidar ranging,” Optics Communications, Vol. 517, 128260 (2022) (“Li”).
Regarding claim 2, Shu, in view of Bulteel and Ozawa, teaches the distance measuring apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined number of light receiving elements are a predetermined number of single photon avalanche diodes (SPADs) (Shu [0096]-[0097] teaches that each photosensor/pixel includes a plurality of photodetectors and teaches that each pixel may have a multitude of SPAD units. Thus, Shu teaches that the predetermined plurality of light-receiving elements are SPADs.),
the light receiving unit includes a passive quenching circuit configured to start to recover a voltage applied to each of the predetermined number of SPADs in response to occurrence of a breakdown phenomenon brought about by light reception (Ozawa teaches that photon incidence produces an electron-hole pair that initiates avalanche current. In the passive circuit, as the cathode voltage falls, the avalanche current stops and recharge current begins, restoring the SPAD cathode voltage. Ozawa explains that the recovery period is the SPAD dead time ([0047]- [0053]).
Shu, in view of Bulteel and Ozawa, fails to explicitly teach the response time is a sum of a pulse width of the light projection pulse and the setting value serving as the dead time of the predetermined number of SPADs.
As indicated above in claim 1, Ozawa teaches a setting value corresponding to the dead time of the SPADs. However, Shu, in view of Bulteel and Ozawa, does not explicitly determine a timing interval according to the sum of the SPAD dead time (Td) and the pulse width (Pw).
Li teaches, in a single photon LiDAR system employing a SPAD detector, determining a timing interval according to the sum of the SPAD dead time (Td) and the pulse width (Pw). Specifically, Li teaches in §2.2 that the optimal interval criterion is approximately (Td+Pw) and further teaches that the received echo pulse width (Pw) is substantially the same as the transmitted pulse width (Li, p. 4, §2.2). Li experimentally applies the (Td+Pw) relationship using a SPAD having a 45ns dead time and a transmitted laser pulse having a pulse width of approximately 6.3 ns (Li, p. 7, §4). Thus, Li recognizes that the combined temporal extent of the transmitted pulse and the SPAD dead-time interval is represented by the sum Td+Pw.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Shu according to Li because Li teaches that use of the SPAD dead time based timing relationship blocks intervening noise, increases detecting the next desired pulse, and reduces wasted laser energy. See Li, p. 2, §2.1. Li further identifies approximately (Td+Pw) as an optimum interval criterion. See Li, p. 4, §2.2. Such modification would predictably improve photon detection efficiency and ranging performance in Shu's SPAD based LiDAR system.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu in view of Bulteel, Ozawa and Zhu et al. (US 20110313722 A1, “Zhu”).
Regarding claim 3, Shu, in view of Bulteel and Ozowa, fails to explicitly teach the distance measuring apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the two or more fall timings are detected for each of the pixels, the measuring unit is configured to decide the light reception timing on a basis of the latest fall timing.
Zhu teaches that, in the presence of an obscuring aerosol cloud, a return signal may include a plurality of discernible falling edges and that the last falling edge may correspond to the actual object rather than an intervening aerosol return ([0075]). Zhu further teaches determining range based on a falling edge of the return signal ([0023]- [0024]; claims 35 and 52). Accordingly, Zhu teaches identifying the later or last falling edge as corresponding to the object return when earlier falling edges are attributable to obscurant returns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Shu according to Zhu because Zhu teaches that obscuring aerosols may produce erroneous intermediate returns and that identifying the return associated with the actual object reduces errors caused by the obscurant. See Zhu [0075], [0077]. Such modification would predictably improve identification of the actual object return and reduce erroneous ranging caused by aerosol returns.
Regarding claim 5, Shu, in view of Bulteel and Ozawa, fails to explicitly teach the distance measuring apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the measuring unit is configured to refrain from performing the distance measurement for a pixel for which a gradient of the response waveform in a section including the fall timing and following a peak of the response waveform is less than or equal to a gradient threshold.
Zhu [0083] teaches that the slope of the falling portion of a return waveform can be used to distinguish an actual object return from an aerosol return. Zhu [0084] teaches evaluating the falling section using threshold crossings V1 and V2, and [0085] calculates the falling edge slope as: δ = (V1-V2)/(T1-T2) and compares that slope with a predetermined threshold. Zhu classifies the return as aerosol when the falling-edge slope is below the minimum threshold. Zhu [0023]- [0024] and claims 35 and 52 further teach rejecting or discarding the corresponding range when the return is determined to represent aerosol rather than the desired object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply Zhu's falling edge gradient discrimination to Shu because Zhu teaches that diffuse aerosol returns exhibit a smaller falling edge slope than object returns and that comparison of the falling edge slope with a threshold reduces false alarms (Zhu, [0077], [0082]- [0083], [0110]). Applying the technique to each Shu pixel would predictably prevent distance measurements from being accepted when the detected response is more consistent with an aerosol/noise return than an actual object return.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu in view of Bulteel, Ozawa and Sumi et al. (JP 2015194356 A, “Sumi”).
Regarding claim 4, Shu, in view of Bulteel and Ozawa, fails to explicitly teach distance measuring apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the signal processing unit is further configured to detect, for each of the pixels, a rise timing at which the value of the response waveform exceeds the threshold, and the measuring unit is configured to, in a case where a time difference between the timing earlier than the fall timing by the response time and the rise timing is greater than or equal to a predetermined time threshold, decide the timing earlier than the fall timing by the response time as the light reception timing and configured to, in a case where the time difference between the timing earlier than the fall timing by the response time and the rise timing is less than the predetermined time threshold, decide the rise timing as the light reception timing.
Sumi teaches detecting a rising edge of a received pulse as a reception timing and determining a received pulse width from the interval between the rising and falling edges ([0020]). Sumi further teaches comparing the measured received pulse width with an estimated pulse width W1. When the measured pulse width is not greater than W1, Sumi determines that the received pulse corresponds to the desired wave and performs distance measurement using the rising-edge reception timing. When the measured pulse width is greater than W1, Sumi determines that clutter and the desired wave are combined and calculates a corrected measurement timing by subtracting the estimated pulse width W1 from the falling-edge timing ([0032], steps S804-S805).
Sumi's comparison is mathematically equivalent to comparing the corrected fall-side timing with the rise timing. Specifically, if F represents the fall timing and R represents the rise timing, Sumi compares the pulse width F-R with W1. The condition: F-R > W1 is equivalent to: (F-W1)-R > 0.
Thus, Sumi teaches comparing a time difference between a corrected fall timing F-W1 and the rise timing R with a predetermined threshold, namely zero, and selecting either the corrected fall timing or the rise timing according to the result of that comparison.
Sumi differs from the claimed implementation only with respect to assignment of the equality condition. Sumi uses the rise-side timing when the measured pulse width is equal to W1, whereas claim 4 assigns equality to the corrected fall-side branch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to assign the single equality boundary to either adjacent comparator branch because Sumi teaches the same two operating regimes separated by the threshold and identifies no technical criticality associated with whether equality is processed by one branch or the other. Such comparator implementation would preserve Sumi's taught function of distinguishing an ordinary desired return from a broadened return containing clutter.
It would therefore have been obvious to further modify Shu according to Sumi to compare the temporal separation between rise side and corrected fall side timing with a predetermined time criterion and, when the temporal difference indicates a broadened or clutter combined return, use the corrected fall side timing, while otherwise using the rise timing, because Sumi teaches that such processing enables a desired return to be distinguished and ranged even when clutter such as fog is combined with the desired return. Sumi explains that its processing permits the desired wave to be identified even when clutter and the desired return are combined ([0034]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shu in view of Bulteel, Ozawa and Nakanishi et al. (US 5082363 A, “Nakanishi”).
Regarding claim 7, Shu, in view of Bulteel and Ozawa, fails to explicitly teach the distance measuring apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the light projecting unit is configured to increase a light amount of the light projection pulse over time when the light projection pulse is projected.
However, Nakanishi teaches a light projection control that generates a light projection pulse whose level increases, and whose increasing rate gradually increases, from the start of light projection (col. 3, ll. 16- 29; col. 11, ll. 1- 9 and 36-40; claim 1). Nakanishi further teaches that as the light projection pulse level gradually increases, the reflected light amount likewise gradually increases with elapsed time (col. 3, ll. 34- 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the light projecting unit of Shu according to Nakanishi because Nakanishi teaches that controlling the light projection in this manner regulates the reflected-light level, prevents saturation of the receiving/processing circuitry, and reduces distance-measurement error. See Nakanishi, col. 3, ll. 38-58. Such modification would predictably improve received signal control and measurement reliability in Shu's distance measuring system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhu et al. (US 20230061653 A1), teaches Detection circuit for adjusting width of output pulses, receiving unit, laser radar
Finkelstein et al. (US 20190250257 A1), teaches Methods and systems for high-resolution long-range flash lidar
Agranov et al. (US 20170176579 A1), teaches Light Detection and Ranging Sensor
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30-5:30.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached on (571) 270-3603. 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.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
