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 .
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 21-33, drawn to a method.
Group II, claims 34-40, drawn to an apparatus.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13 because their shared technical feature is not a “special” technical feature for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups share the technical feature of:
…decontamination…comprising…
…plastics in solid particulate form…tank….
…a liquid into the…tank…
…the…tank…ultrasonic waves…
this shared feature is not a “special” feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of DENIFL et al. (US PGPUB 20230357519) (see prior-art rejections below).
During a telephone conversation with TIFFANY ADIGWE on 6/26/2026, a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 21-33. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Claims 34-40 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 24-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites “controlling at least one process parameter of the purified liquid and/or at least one process parameter of the liquid in the tank” at lines 2-4. Because Claim 23 recites that the purified liquid is introduced into the tank, this means the purified liquid is also a liquid in the tank. Therefore, the distinction between “purified liquid” and “liquid in the tank” is unclear. Clarification is requested.
Claim 25 recites “other NIAS” at line 2. The metes and bounds of “other NIAS” are unclear. First, the word “other” means acetaldehyde, benzene, limonene, and toluene are excluded from the scope of “other NIAS.” But the only examples of NIAS given in the specification are acetaldehyde, benzene, limonene, and toluene, so it’s unclear what chemicals are considered “other NIAS.” Second, because NIAS means “non-intentionally added substances” (see Spec. at ¶ 0004), it’s unclear whose intention defines the scope of “NIAS.” Clarification is requested.
Claim 26 recites “the liquid” throughout the claim. But Claim 23 already recites both “liquid” and “purified liquid,” wherein the purified liquid also returns back to the tank. So it’s unclear which liquid—e.g., liquid in the tank before purification, purified liquid, a mixture of unpurified liquid and purified liquid, etc.—is being recited in Claim 26. Clarification is requested.
Claim 26 recites “the at least one process parameter” at line 1-2. But Claim 24 recites “at least one process parameter of the purified liquid,” “at least one process parameter of the liquid in the tank,” and “at least one process parameter of the ultrasonic waves,” so it’s unclear which process parameter is being recited in Claim 26. Clarification is requested.
Claim 28 recites “other NIAS” at line 2. The metes and bounds of “other NIAS” are unclear. First, the word “other” means acetaldehyde, benzene, limonene, and toluene are excluded from the scope of “other NIAS.” But the only examples of NIAS given in the specification are acetaldehyde, benzene, limonene, and toluene, so it’s unclear what chemicals are considered “other NIAS.” Second, because NIAS means “non-intentionally added substances” (see Spec. at ¶ 0004), it’s unclear whose intention defines the scope of “NIAS.” Clarification is requested.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21, 29, 30, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DENIFL et al. (US PGPUB 20230357519).
Regarding Claim 21, DENIFL teaches a method of decontamination (see, e.g., abstract, ¶¶ 0214-20, Example 1, Table 4). DENIFL’s method (Example 1) comprises the steps of:
introducing a liquid into a tank (see ¶ 0219, adding water and heptane to a beaker);
loading plastics in solid particulate form into the tank (see ¶ 0219, cryo-milled polymer powder is added to the beaker);
wherein the liquid is in contact with the plastics (see ¶ 0219, water, heptane, and polymer powder are added to the beaker);
hitting the plastics in the tank and the liquid in contact with the plastics with ultrasonic waves (see ¶ 0219, after water, heptane, and polymer powder are added to the beaker, activate the ultrasound probe).
DENIFL does not explicitly teach that, in Example 1, the liquid is introduced into the tank “so that the liquid is in contact with the plastics”—the words “so that” suggest a sequential order of adding the plastics to the tank, before adding the liquid to the tank.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify DENIFL’s Example 1 to switch the order of adding the liquid and adding the plastics. First, DENIFL already teaches providing plastics first, and then adding liquid so that the liquid comes into contact with the plastics (see ¶¶ 0014-16, 0036-38, 0115-17, 0121-23, claim 1). Second, changes in sequence of adding ingredients are generally considered obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04.IV.C. Here, switching the order of adding the liquid and adding the plastics would still yield the predictable results of using the liquid to clean the plastics.
In the resulting modification of DENIFL: the plastics (polymer powder) would be added to the tank, and then the liquid (water-heptane mixture) would be added to the tank “so that” the liquid is in contact with the plastics.
Regarding Claim 29, DENIFL teaches the method of claim 21. DENIFL teaches: during the hitting step, a step of stirring the plastics in the tank, wherein the stirring step is carried out by a stirrer (see ¶ 0219, using magnetic stirrer and ultrasound together).
Regarding Claim 30, DENIFL teaches the method of claim 21. DENIFL teaches wherein the plastics comprises recycled post-consumer plastics PCR (recycled polyolefin, see abstract, ¶¶ 0001, 0014, 0215-26; see also specification of this application at ¶ 0067, recycled polyolefin is an example of recycled post-consumer plastics PCR).
Regarding Claim 33, DENIFL teaches the method of claim 21. DENIFL teaches the liquid is a water-based solvent (see ¶ 0219, a water-heptane mixture).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DENIFL (as applied to Claim 21 above), in view of CHAO et al. (WIPO Publication WO0077135A2).
Regarding Claim 22, DENIFL teaches the method of claim 21.
DENIFL does not explicitly teach: “wherein the tank is pressure-tight and the liquid in the tank is under pressure during the hitting step.”
CHAO teaches cleaning articles in a tank (cleaning chamber 42) (see Fig. 2, pg. 9 line 28-30, pg. 5 line 11-15), wherein the articles may be plastic (see pg. 3 line 23-24, claim 7). CHAO teaches that the tank is pressure-tight (see pg. 5 line 11-15, chamber 42 may be sealed and pressurized to about 700-800 psi). CHAO teaches loading the articles into the tank (see step 26 in Fig. 1, pg. 9 line 28-30); sealing the tank (see pg. 9 line 30); introducing a liquid into the sealed tank (see step 28 in Fig. 1, pg. 9 line 31 to pg. 10 line 10), wherein the liquid in the tank is under pressure (see pg. 9 line 31 to pg. 10 line 10, the liquid is CO2, which exists in liquid state at a pressure above 5.1 atm). CHAO teaches that the liquid is agitated (see step 30 in Fig. 1, pg. 10 line 11-25), wherein agitation may be in the form of ultrasonic waves (see pg. 10 line 24, pg. 4 line 7, pg. 7 line 25-26). In other words, CHAO teaches hitting the articles in the tank and the liquid in contact with the articles with ultrasonic waves, wherein the liquid in the tank is under pressure during the hitting step.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify DENIFL to incorporate a pressure-tight tank and pressurize the liquid in the tank during the hitting step, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the plastics. It’s already known in the art to ultrasonic clean plastic articles submerged in a liquid in a tank (see DENIFL; see CHAO); and it’s already known that the tank may be pressure-tight (see CHAO), and the liquid in the tank may be under pressure during the ultrasonic step (see CHAO). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DENIFL (as applied to Claim 21 above), in view of CUI et al. (Chinese Publication CN111266351A, as translated by Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 23, DENIFL teaches the method of claim 21.
DENIFL does not explicitly teach steps of “purifying the liquid exiting the tank to obtain a purified liquid, introducing the purified liquid into the tank and hitting the plastics in the tank and the purified liquid in contact with the plastics with ultrasonic waves.”
CUI teaches using ultrasonic waves to clean a target object submerged in a liquid in a tank (see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0048-49), just like the present application.
PNG
media_image1.png
454
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CUI teaches purifying the liquid exiting the tank to obtain a purified liquid (see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0053, 0057, liquid exiting tank 2 is purified by filter 55), introducing the purified liquid into the tank (see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0055-56, filtered liquid returns to tank 2 via branch pipe 542 and nozzle 53) and hitting the plastics in the tank and the purified liquid in contact with the plastics with ultrasonic waves (see Fig. 1, ¶ 0048, the liquid is purified and returned to tank 2 simultaneously with ultrasonic cleaning). CUI teaches that, by purifying the cleaning liquid, it’s possible to improve the reuse rate of the cleaning liquid (see ¶ 0048). CUI also teaches that, by purifying the cleaning liquid and returning the purified liquid back to the tank, it’s possible to improve the stability of cleaning quality (see ¶ 0048).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify DENIFL’s method to incorporate steps of purifying the liquid exiting the tank to obtain a purified liquid, introducing the purified liquid into the tank and hitting the plastics in the tank and the purified liquid in contact with the plastics with ultrasonic waves, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the plastics.
First, given the benefits of improving the cleaning liquid’s reuse rate and improving the stability of cleaning quality, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to modify DENIFL’s method to purify the liquid existing the tank and return the purified liquid back to the tank for ultrasonic cleaning.
Second, it’s already known in the prior art that, when ultrasonic cleaning objects submerged in a liquid in a tank, it’s possible to purify the liquid exiting the tank to obtain a purified liquid, introduce the purified liquid into the tank, and hitting the objects in the tank and the purified liquid in contact with the objects with ultrasonic waves (see CUI). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
Claims 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DENIFL (as applied to Claim 21 above), in view of CHEN et al. (US Patent 8863763).
Regarding Claim 23, DENIFL teaches the method of claim 21.
DENIFL does not explicitly teach steps of “purifying the liquid exiting the tank to obtain a purified liquid, introducing the purified liquid into the tank and hitting the plastics in the tank and the purified liquid in contact with the plastics with ultrasonic waves.”
CHEN teaches using ultrasonic waves to clean a target object submerged in a liquid in a tank (see, e.g., abstract, Figs. 4-5, col. 7 lines 34-43, col. 8 line 45-51), just like the present application. CHEN teaches:
purifying the liquid exiting the tank to obtain a purified liquid (see Figs. 4-5, col. 7 line 64 to col. 8 line 1, col. 8 lines 52-59; see also col. 3 line 22-25, a filter positioned between the tank’s egress and ingress ports);
introducing the purified liquid into the tank (see Fig. 4, filtered liquid returns to tank 402 via ingress port 401; see Fig. 5, col. 8 lines 52-59, filtered liquid returns to tank 502 via ingress port 501; see also col. 3 line 22-25, filtered liquid flows back to tank); and
hitting the object in the tank and the purified liquid in contact with the object (as explained above, the filtered liquid returns to tank 402) with ultrasonic waves (see Fig. 4, col. 8 lines 24-44, col. 15 lines 31-46, filtering is concurrent with sonication).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify DENIFL’s method to incorporate steps of purifying the liquid exiting the tank to obtain a purified liquid, introducing the purified liquid into the tank and hitting the plastics in the tank and the purified liquid in contact with the plastics with ultrasonic waves, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the plastics.
First, given the benefit of purifying the cleaning liquid for reuse, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to modify DENIFL’s method to purify the liquid existing the tank and return the purified liquid back to the tank for ultrasonic cleaning.
Second, it’s already known in the prior art that, when ultrasonic cleaning objects submerged in a liquid in a tank, it’s possible to purify the liquid exiting the tank to obtain a purified liquid, introduce the purified liquid into the tank, and hitting the objects in the tank and the purified liquid in contact with the objects with ultrasonic waves (see CHEN). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of DENIFL and CHEN teaches the method of claim 23. The combination teaches:
detecting an amount of at least one contaminant present in the liquid exiting the tank (see CHEN at Fig. 4, col. 7 line 58 to col. 8 line 16); and
controlling a process parameter (e.g., flowrate) of the purified liquid (see CHEN at Fig. 4, col. 8 line 29-44, col. 15 line 31-46, controlling flow control element 428, which controls the flow of purified liquid in the recirculation loop), and/or a process parameter (e.g., flowrate) of the liquid in the tank (see id., controlling flow control element 428, which controls the cross flow inside the tank), and/or a process parameter (e.g., intensity) of the ultrasonic waves (see CHEN at col. 8 line 29-44, col. 15 line 31-46, controlling sonication power) based on the amount of at least one contaminant detected in the liquid exiting the tank (see id.).
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of DENIFL and CHEN teaches the method of claim 24. The combination teaches wherein the at least one contaminant comprises limonene (see DENIFL at ¶¶ 0058-59, 0080-83, 0111-13) and/or other NIAS (see DENIFL at ¶¶ 0056-59, 0080-83, 0111-13).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of DENIFL and CHEN teaches the method of claim 24. The combination teaches a set of process parameters comprising: flowrate of the liquid through the tank (see CHEN at Fig. 4, col. 8 line 29-44, col. 15 line 31-46, controlling flow control element 428); intensity of the ultrasonic waves (see CHEN at col. 8 line 29-44, col. 15 line 31-46, controlling sonication power).
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DENIFL (as applied to Claim 21 above), in view of HAMADA et al. (WIPO Publication WO2014129579A1, as translated by Espacenet).
Regarding Claim 27, DENIFL teaches the method of claim 21. DENIFL teaches a step of detecting an amount of at least one contaminant present in the plastics (see ¶ 0218), wherein such detecting step is performed before the step of loading the plastics into the tank (see ¶ 0218, concentration is determined before washing).
DENIFL does not explicitly teach a step of “controlling at least one process parameter of the liquid and/or of the ultrasonic waves based on the amount of at least one contaminant detected in the plastics.”
But such controlling step is already known in the prior art. HAMADA teaches using ultrasonic waves to clean a target object submerged in a liquid (see pg. 15-16), just like the present application. HAMADA teaches controlling a process parameter (e.g., dwell time) of the liquid and/or of the ultrasonic waves based on the amount of contaminant detected for the target object (see pg. 16-17, increasing time for a higher degree of contamination and decreasing time for a lower degree of contamination).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify DENIFL’s method to incorporate a step of controlling a process parameter (e.g., dwell time) of the liquid and/or of the ultrasonic waves based on the amount of at least one contaminant detected in the plastics, with reasonable expectation of cleaning the plastics. It’s already known in the prior art to control a process parameter (e.g., dwell time) of the liquid and/or of the ultrasonic waves based on the amount of contaminant detected for a target object subjected to cleaning (see HAMADA). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of DENIFL and HAMADA teaches the method of claim 27. The combination also teaches wherein the at least one contaminant comprises limonene (see DENIFL at ¶¶ 0058-59, 0080-83, 0111-13) and/or other NIAS (see DENIFL at ¶¶ 0056-59, 0080-83, 0111-13).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DENIFL (as applied to Claim 21 above), in view of HAHN (US Patent 4839969).
Regarding Claim 31, DENIFL teaches the method of claim 21. DENIFL teaches drying the plastics (see ¶ 0220) after cleaning the plastics.
DENIFL does not explicitly teach: “wherein the plastics is transferred from the tank to a container in which the plastics is made to descend from top to bottom, is hit in counter-current by a process gas and is stirred by a stirrer.”
But those steps are already known in the prior art. HAHN teaches a process of drying plastics in sold particulate form (see abstract, col. 2 line 48 to col. 3 line 16) that comprises: transferring the plastics from a tank (feed hopper 12) to a container (drier 14) (see Figs. 1-2, col. 3 lines 44-45), wherein in the container (drier 14) the plastics is made of descend from top to bottom (see Figs. 1-2, col. 3 lines 53-55), is hit in counter-current by a process gas (see Figs. 1-2, col. 3 line 55-64), and is stirred by a stirrer (see Figs. 1-2, col. 7 line 42-52, stirring arms on shaft 16). HAHN’s drying process can contact each plastic particulate (see col. 7 line 46-52) to achieve efficient thermal transfer while also saving cost (see col. 9 line 13-28).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify DENIFL’s method to incorporate HAHN’s drying process, with reasonable expectation of drying the plastics. First, given the benefits of contacting each plastic particulate to achieve efficient thermal transfer while also saving cost, a person of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated to incorporate HAHN’s drying process. Second, it’s already known in the prior art to dry plastics (in solid particulate form) by transferring the plastics from a tank to a container, wherein in the container the plastics is made to descend from top to bottom, is hit in counter-current by a process gas and is stirred by a stirrer (see HAHN). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-421; MPEP § 2143, A.
As an alternative ground, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute DENIFL’s drying process with HAHN’s drying process with reasonable expectation of drying the plastics. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007); MPEP § 2143, B. DENIFL’s drying process and HAHN’s drying process both serve the same function of drying plastics in solid particulate form; thus, their substitution would yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 32 contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 32 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not anticipate or suggest the subject matter of Claim 32, a dependent claim. The most relevant prior art references are DENIFL et al. (US PGPUB 20230357519) and HAHN (US Patent 4839969), as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 32, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a decontamination method with the specific combination of structural and functional limitations as recited in Claim 32, wherein such combination includes, inter alia:
the plastics is transferred from the tank to a container in which the plastics is made to descend from top to bottom, is hit in counter-current by a process gas and is stirred by a stirrer;
the plastics is transferred from the container to a hopper where the plastics is made to descend from top to bottom, is hit in counter-current by a process gas and is heated by radio frequency waves.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:00-17:00 Eastern.
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, KAJ OLSEN can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/RICHARD Z. ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights