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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-8.
The Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claim 9 and withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
The Examiner acknowledges the replacement drawings.
The Examiner acknowledges the replacement specification.
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 replacement device (Claim 4, line 4) must be shown 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71, as being so incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonable search of the prior art by the examiner. For example, the following items are not understood in light of the current specification and drawings: the extrusion rod (push rod), pressing plate, the airbag (flexible chamber), the buffer airbag (buffer flexible chamber), the displacement track (movement path) of the pressing plate, the displacement track (movement path) of the airbag, the displacement track (movement path) of the ejection plate, and the replacement mode (replacement method).
Applicant is required to submit an amendment which clarifies the disclosure so that the examiner may make a proper comparison of the invention with the prior art.
Applicant should be careful not to introduce any new matter into the disclosure (i.e., matter which is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed).
The amendment to the specification filed on 11/12/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Push rod
Flexible chamber
Buffer flexible chamber
Replacement method
Movement path
Please see the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections below for an explanation regarding the new matter issues. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim requires an “extrusion rod” amended to “push rod” and a “pressing plate” but the structure of both components is not disclosed in the specification and the drawings such as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. The test for compliance with § 112 has always required sufficient information in the original disclosure to show that the inventor possessed the invention at the time of the original filing. See Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1561 ("Adequate description of the invention guards against the inventor's overreaching by insisting that he recount his invention in such detail that his future claims can be determined to be encompassed within his original creation").
The possession test requires assessment from the viewpoint of one of skill in the art. Id. at 1563-64 ("the applicant must ... convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention") (emphasis in original); Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 997, 54 USPQ2d 1227, 1232 (Fed.Cir.2000) ("The written description requirement does not require the applicant `to describe exactly the subject matter claimed, [instead] the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed'") (citation omitted).
First, regarding the “extrusion rod” amended to “push rod”, it is not disclosed as to what the significance of “extrusion” is as it is unknown if this refer to a process by which the rod is produced, a function of the rod, or has some other significance. Additionally, the specification does not disclose additional structural detail about the extrusion rod and only contains recitations of the claimed limitations. Further, the extrusion rod is not shown in the drawings. As such, the written description fails to ensure a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be apprised of the structure of the instant extrusion rod.
Second, regarding the pressing plate, while plates are well-known in the art of shaving devices and pressing is a well-known function of a planar structure, the instant pressing plate is not shown in the drawings and the specification does not further define the structure beyond a restatement of the claimed limitations in P. 0006, 0020, and 0032, and a statement drawn to the claimed function of the plate in P. 0044. As such, the written description fails to ensure a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be apprised of the structure of the instant pressing plate.
Additionally, the claim requires an “airbag” amended to “flexible chamber” but shows a curved rectangular structure that appears to be rigid. As the common definition for a bag is a flexible container and the drawings and specification do not disclose this structure as being flexible or deformable it is not known how the claimed airbag would be considered a bag. As such, the written description of the instant disclosure does not provide sufficient structural insight for the airbag as to reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Further, claim 1 is now also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for the following specific new matter issues, however, in general the amendments to claim 1 are considered new matter. First, the “push rod” is new matter as the amendment is a change in scope from “extrusion rod” that is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed. The extrusion rod is disclosed by the original specification as causing “extrusion” (P. 0044) and not limited to pushing. Second, the “flexible chamber” is new matter as the amendment is a change in scope from “airbag” that is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed. The airbag as disclosed by the original disclosure and as shown in Fig. 5 appears to be a rectangular rigid structure and while the airbag is disclosed as being “extruded”, extrusion does not require a material to be flexible, compressible, or expandable as solid materials can be extruded. Third, the limitation “a snap-fit fastener slidably extending through the top of the bottom plate” is new matter. As seen in Fig. 2 of the instant drawings they do not show the snap-fit fastener extending through the bottom plate and the specification as originally filed states in P. 0007 “the top of the bottom plate penetrates through a snap-fit fastener”, as such the written description does not support the snap-fit fastener extending through the bottom plate. Fourth, the limitation “a push rod slidably extending through the top plate” is new matter. As seen in Fig. 3 of the instant drawings they do not show the “push rod” extending through the top plate, the structure identified as the push rod does not appear to contact the top plate. The specification as filed discloses in P. 0032 that the “top plate penetrates through an extrusion rod” which is different than the amended claim. Fifth, the limitation “a top plate detachably engaged with a top of the protective plate” is new matter. The limitation as originally filed read “a top plate is clamped to a top of the protective plate”, the term clamped does not inherently mean that the connection between the two structures is detachable as clamping may be permanent and the disclosure as originally filed does not mention removing one structure from the other.
Regarding claims 2-9, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, due to their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the claim includes the limitation “wherein a top of the flexible is positioned in a movement path of the pressing plate, a bottom of the pushing plate is positioned in a movement path of the flexible chamber” in lines 2-4 of the claim. It is not known what the movement path of the pressing plate is and what the movement path of the flexible chamber is. The instant specification in P. 0008 states “a top of the airbag 57 is positioned on a movement path of the pressing plate 56, a bottom of the pushing plate 59 is positioned on the movement path of the airbag 57, and the snap-fit fastener 58 is fixedly connected with the shaver body 1 through the snap-fit block 510. Such design improves the accuracy of the device operation, reduces the operation error caused by the position dislocation, and ensures the stable operation of the device” and does not further disclose the relationship of the pressing plate and the airbag while also not further defining what a movement path is and the movement paths are not shown in the drawings. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation a path may refer to structure, a direction of travel, or a pathway a component follows during travel. The disclosure fails to divulge in the claim, specification and drawings the structure for the claimed movement paths or a sufficient description such as to reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Therefore, the claim is rejected due to failing to provide a sufficient written description.
Additionally, the amendment to the claim to amend the displacement track to movement path is considered new matter. The disclosure as filed did not describe, show, or indicate what this limitation is. The amendment to “movement path” would indicate that it is a direction but the disclosure as filed clearly links it to structure as the “displacement track of the ejection plate”, the “displacement track of the pressing plate”, or the “displacement track of the airbag” and does not indicate a direction for travel for any structures. As such there is no support for amending the displacement tracks as movement paths.
Regarding claims 3-8, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, due to their dependency on claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the claim includes the following new matter issues. First, the limitation “further comprising a shaver head detachably connected to an inner wall of the protective plate”. As originally filed and supported by the original disclosure the shaver head and inner wall of the protective plate are fixedly connected. A detachable connection between these two structures has not been previously disclosed and while the shaver head is originally disclosed as being removable and it is not clear that the connection between these two structures needs to be detachable for the shaver head to be removable. As such, this limitation appears to be new matter. Second, the limitation “wherein the switch is electrically connected to the shaver body” is new matter. The claim as originally filed and P. 0034 of the originally filed specification state “the switch is fixedly connected with the snap-fit block through the shaver body”. There is no support for the switch being “electrically connected” to the shaver body.
Regarding claims 4-8, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, due to their dependency on claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the claim includes the limitation “buffer flexible chamber”. The “flexible chamber” is new matter as the amendment is a change in scope from “airbag” that is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed. The airbag as disclosed by the original disclosure and as shown in Fig. 5 appears to be a rectangular rigid structure and the original disclosure does not contain any reference to the buffer airbag as being flexible, compressible or deformable. The disclosure as originally filed also does not describe the buffer airbag as being extruded or being pressed only as being connected to other structures. As such, the “buffer flexible chamber” is considered new matter.
Regarding claims 5-8, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, due to their dependency on claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, the claim states “two snap-fit fasteners 58 are arranged symmetrically with each other along a vertical central axis of the shaver body 1” in lines 3-5 of the claim. First, it is unclear that there are two snap-fit fasteners. The snap-fit fasteners are identified as reference number 58 and points separately to two structures in Fig. 2 and 4. In Fig. 2 reference number 58 points to a side of the pushing plate while in Fig. 4 reference number 58 points to a structure between the bottom plate and the snap-fit block. It is not clear if the snap-fit fastener of Fig. 2 is a structure separate from the pushing plate or if the snap-fit fastener is a component of the pushing plate. Similarly, it is not clear if the snap-fit fastener of Fig. 4 is a structure separate from the snap-fit block or if the snap-fit fastener is a component of the snap-fit block. While snap-fit fasteners are well known in the art it cannot be decerned as to what the structure of the claimed snap-fit fasteners is as the specification does not sufficiently disclose the structure of the fasteners and while the drawings point to a structure they do not show the structures in such detail that a person of ordinary skill would recognize the structures as snap-fit fasteners.
Regarding claim 8, the claim includes the limitation “the top plate is operatively coupled to the connecting plate through the buffer rod”. As originally filed the specification in P. 0021 states “the top plate is fixedly connected with the connecting plate through the buffer rod”. The connection between these structures is not shown in the drawings. The only connection between these structures disclosed by the disclosure as originally filed is a fixed connection. As such, the operative connection between the top plate and the connecting plate through the buffer rod is considered new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim states “a pressing block fixedly connected to two ends of the push rod” in line 18 of the claim. It is unclear how the pressing block is fixedly connected to two ends of the push rod as the pressing block is not disclosed as extending over two ends of the push rod.
Regarding claim 2-8, these claims are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the claim states “wherein a top of the flexible chamber 57 is positioned in a movement path of the pressing plate 56, a bottom of the pushing plate 59 is positioned in the movement path of the flexible chamber 57, and the snap-fit fastener 58 is fixedly connected with the shaver body 1 through the snap-fit block 510” in lines 2-6 of the claim. It is unclear as to what the movement path of the pressing plate and the flexible chamber is. Generally in the art a path refers to a structural groove or channel which a component follows when moved but may also refer to the line or path the component follows during movement either when attached to a device or detached from a device. Additionally, a “movement path” is not defined by the disclosure. As such it is unclear what the applicant considers a “movement path” as it may refer to structure or may refer to some arbitrary path the structure is capable of moving along either when connected to the device or separated from the device. As such, it is not understood as to what the applicant considers the claimed movement path to be which renders the instant claim indefinite
Regarding claims 3-8, these claims are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency on claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the claim states “wherein the switch is electrically connected to the shaver body” in lines 4-5 of the claim. The claimed electrical connection between the switch and the shaver body is unclear. The shaver body is not claimed as being electrical or connecting to motor or battery or some other structure that provides electrical power. As such, it is unclear how the connection is electrical.
Regarding claims 4-8, these claims are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency on claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, the claim states “wherein a buffer spring 96 is fixedly sleeved on a peripheral surface of the buffer rod 94, and an end of the buffer spring 96 away from the buffer rod 94 is fixedly connected to the top of the connecting plate 91” in lines 2-5 of the claim. It is unclear from the limitation how an end of the buffer spring is away from the buffer rod when the entirety of the buffer spring is fixedly sleeved on the surface of the buffer rod as no part of the buffer spring would be away from the rod.
Regarding claims 6-8, these claims are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency on claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the claim states “wherein a bottom of the top plate 53 is positioned in a movement path of the ejection plate 93” in lines 2-3 of the claim. It is unclear as to what the movement path of the ejection plate is. Generally in the art a path refers to a structural groove or channel which a component follows when moved but may also refer to the line or path the component follows during movement either when attached to a device or detached from a device. Additionally, a “movement path” is not defined by the disclosure. As such it is unclear what the applicant considers a “movement path” as it may refer to structure or may refer to some arbitrary path the structure is capable of moving along either when connected to the device or separated from the device. As such, it is not understood as to what the applicant considers the claimed movement path to be which renders the instant claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 7-8, these claims are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency on claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, this claim is rejected as indefinite due to its dependency on claim 7 and as the claim states “the top plate is operatively coupled to the connection plate through the buffer rod” in lines 3-5 of the claim. It is unclear how the buffer rod operatively couples the connecting plate and the top plate as such an operative connection is not shown by the drawings or disclosed by the specification as filed. The specification as originally filed in P. 0021 discloses “the top plate is fixedly connected with the connecting plate through the buffer rod” but no other mention of a connection between these structures is shown or disclosed. As such, it is unclear as to what the scope of the claim is and the claim is rejected as indefinite.
EXAMINER’S NOTE
As the amendments to the claims and specification include new matter which was not part of the original disclosure as filed which in addition to the issues previously identified renders the instant invention is in such as state where the written description and disclosure of the instant invention as a whole does not permit the examination of the instant invention. The amended claims, specification and drawings still suffer from replated issues with the written description requirement, indefiniteness, missing features not shown in the drawings in addition to the new matter introduced into both the claims and specification such that there is still a great deal of uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims. Additionally, it should be noted that in addition to there being no teachings in the disclosure as filed for the amendments to the disclosure many of the amendments are also not mere interchangeable names for the claimed components such as the claimed airbag amended as a flexible chamber. As such, it is would be improper for the Examiner reject the claims on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims (see MPEP 2173.06(II)). The Examiner has not provided prior art rejections for the claims as the independent claim includes limitations that the Examiner cannot discern the scope of and the written description does not support or disclose those limitations and thereby cannot speculate as to the patentability or unpatentability of the independent claim let alone the dependent claims.
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that the amendments to the drawings overcome the objection of record to the drawings. The Examiner partially agrees, while the applicant did label several of the missing structures the movement paths, replacement device, pressing plate, and ejection device are still missing. As such, an updated objection to the drawings is included in the instant office action.
The applicant asserts that the specification has been amended such as to overcome the objection of record to the specification. The Examiner disagrees, the amendments to the specification are generally considered new matter and do not make the specification more comprehensible. As such, the objection of record is maintained and a new matter objection has been included above.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description rejection of record of claim 1 has been overcome by the amendments to the claim. The Examiner disagrees, the amendments to the claim are new matter and new matter rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are included above for each amendment that explains why each limitation is considered new matter. The Examiner did refer to the applicant’s assertions while determining new matter but the disclosure as originally filed must fully support such changes in scope. As such, the written description rejection of record is maintained but has updated to account for to the amended language of the claim.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description rejection of record for claim 2 has been overcome by the amendments to the claim. The Examiner disagrees, the amendment of “displacement track” to “movement path” is considered new matter, is fully explained in the above new matter rejection of claim 2, and does not overcome the written description rejection of record for claim 2 as it is still unknown what the track or path is. As such, the written description rejection of record is maintained but has updated to account for to the amended language of the claim.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 112(b), and 101 rejections of record for claim 9 are moot as the claim has been cancelled. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the rejections of record for claim 9.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of record of claim 1 is overcome come by the amendments to the claim, the amendments to the drawings and specification, and the explanation contained in the instant remarks. The Examiner partially agrees, while the applicant has amended the drawings to label some of these structures the interactions of these structures is still not clear in light of the instant amendments to the claims. While the applicant has attempted to amend the “extrusion rod” and the “airbag” to “push rod” and “flexible chamber” respectively these amendments are new matter as the disclosure as filed does not fully support the change in scope of these structures. As such an indefiniteness rejection of claim 1 is included regarding an amended limitation.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of record of claim 2 is overcome come by the amendments to the claim. The Examiner disagrees, the applicant’s attempt to amend the “displacement track” to “movement path” does not clarify what the displacement track or movement path is. As such the indefiniteness rejection of record of claim 2 is maintained but has updated to account for to the amended language of the claim and to improve the clarity of the rejection.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of record of claim 3 is overcome come by the amendments to the claim. The Examiner agrees, however a new indefiniteness rejection for claim 3 has been added regarding an amendment to the claim.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of record of claim 4 is overcome come by the amendments to the claim. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the indefiniteness rejection of record, however, the amendments to “buffer airbag” and “buffer flexible chamber” introduce new matter issues and the claim is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of record of claim 5 is overcome come by the amendments to the claim. The Examiner disagrees, the applicant has amended out the term “far” but it is still unclear how an end of the buffer spring can be “away” from the buffer rod when the spring encompasses the rod. As such, the indefiniteness rejection of record for claim 5 is maintained but has updated to account for to the amended language of the claim.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of record of claim 6 is overcome come by the amendments to the claim, the amendments to the drawings and specification, and the explanation contained in the instant remarks. The Examiner disagrees, the applicant’s attempt to amend the “displacement track” to “movement path” does not clarify what the displacement track or movement path is. As such the indefiniteness rejection of record of claim 6 is maintained but has updated to account for to the amended language of the claim and to improve the clarity of the rejection.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of record of claim 7 is overcome come by the amendments to the claim and the amendments to the drawings, and the explanation contained in the instant remarks. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the indefiniteness rejection of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 pm.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724