DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 2/19/2026.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/19/2026 has been entered.
Claims Status
Claims 31-45 and 47 are pending, and are currently being examined.
Claims 31 and 47 are independent, and are newly amended.
Claims 1-30, 46 and 48-149 are canceled.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 31-34, 36-43 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taub (US 20140200426 A1).
Independent Claim 31:
Taub teaches
An analyte monitoring system, comprising: (Abstract and fig. 1)
a sensor control device comprising an analyte sensor coupled with sensor electronics, (analyte sensor 1101 coupled to body electronics 1110, ¶ 153 and fig. 1)
the sensor control device configured to measure a user’s analyte level in a bodily fluid (detecting at least one analyte such as glucose in body fluid, ¶¶ 133 and 136).
and to transmit data indicative of the analyte level; (the sensor transmits analyte monitoring data to a reader device, ¶ 746, which includes analyte levels, ¶ 147)
the sensor control device configured to transmit data indicative of an analyte level; (the sensor transmits analyte monitoring data to a reader device, ¶ 746, which includes analyte levels, ¶ 147)
and a reader device comprising a display, wireless communication circuitry configured to receive the data indicative of the analyte level, (display devices, such as the reader device, include wireless communication ports for sensor derived data communication with other devices such as the body electronics 1110, ¶¶ 141 and 746 and fig. 1)
one or more processors coupled with a memory, the memory configured to store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (¶ 671)
output to the display a sensor usage interface (a displayed weekly report, which each portion thereof includes a graph having representations of glucose data readings, and are each indicative of when a sensor scan was taken [sensor usage interface], ¶ 647 and fig. 77.)
[…].
Taub further suggests:
comprising one or more view metrics, wherein a view metric comprises a count of a number of instances in which a sensor results interface is rendered or brought into a foreground process (after successful sensor scans, a screen is displayed, e.g., a masked mode screen, such as screen 279, ¶ 262 and figs. 7 or fig. 12H, or unmasked mode screen 388 displaying details about the scan, ¶ 285 and fig. 10A. In either case, because an interface is provided based on successfully sensor scans, this is suggestive that “a sensor results interface is rendered or brought into a foreground process”. As such a person having ordinary skill in the art reading Taub would have understood that the indications of successful scans are indications, not only of a scanning activity by the user, but also of rendering a sensor results interface for “viewing” by the user. Furthermore, the reports of Taub are meant to be viewed by users, such as a physician, that may view and download the reports to assess the activities and events of the user, ¶ 596. Furthermore, sensor usage information concerning, e.g., a count of daily scans, such reflected in ¶ 642 and fig. 72, is also indirectly suggestive of “a count of a number of instances an instance in which a sensor results interface is rendered or brought into a foreground process”, because for each successful scan count, an interface is rendered, as explained above.).
Accordingly, 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 system of Taub to include comprising one or more view metrics, wherein a view metric comprises a count of a number of instances in which a sensor results interface is rendered or brought into a foreground process, as suggested by Taub.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to usability of the system, as it would allow users, such as physicians, to have richer and personalized/customized assessment information concerning, and be better apprised of, the activities of their patients, Taub ¶ 596, and Taub ¶¶ 187, 233-234, 526 and 574.
Claim 32:
The rejection of claim 31 is incorporated. Taub further teaches
wherein the sensor usage interface further comprises one or more scan metrics, wherein a scan metric comprises an instance in which a user scans the sensor control device with the reader device. (the sensor is scanned with the reader device, ¶ 758)
Claim 33:
The rejection of claim 31 is incorporated. Taub further suggests
wherein the one or more view metrics includes a total number of views metric, wherein the total number of views metrics is indicative of a total number of views over a predetermined time period (the report reflected in fig. 77, used for claim 31, doesn’t include a total number of scans which, as mentioned for claim 31, is suggestive of views metric. However, other screens [GUIs] display a total number of scan events per day [suggestive of total number of views over a predetermined time], e.g., see ¶ 646 and fig. 76. Taub also discloses that different GUIs may be combined in some instances without compromising the underlying principles of the disclosure, ¶ 221).
Accordingly, 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 system of Taub to include wherein the one or more view metrics includes a total number of views metric, wherein the total number of views metrics is indicative of a total number of views over a predetermined time period, as suggested by Taub.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to further enrich the user’s assessment data by combining information from different GUIs/reports, Taub ¶¶ 221 and 596.
Claim 34:
The rejection of claim 31 is incorporated. Taub further teaches
wherein the one or more view metrics includes a views per day metric, wherein the views per day metric is indicative of an average number of views per day over a predetermined time period (the report reflected in fig. 77, used for claim 31, doesn’t include an average number of scans, which as mentioned for claim 31, is suggestive of views metric. However, other screens [GUIs] display an average number of scans per day [suggestive of total number of views], e.g., see ¶ 646 and fig. 76. Taub also discloses that reports are based on a selected period, such as a selected week or month [over a predetermined time period], ¶ 605 and 640, and that different GUIs may be combined in some instances without compromising the underlying principles of the disclosure, ¶ 221).
Accordingly, 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 system of Taub to include wherein the one or more view metrics includes a views per day metric, wherein the views per day metric is indicative of an average number of views per day over a predetermined time period, as suggested by Taub.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to further enrich the user’s assessment data by combining information from different GUIs/reports, Taub ¶¶ 221 and 596.
Claim 36:
The rejection of claim 31 is incorporated. Taub further teaches
wherein the sensor usage interface further comprises a predetermined time period descriptor, wherein the predetermined time period descriptor is indicative of a predetermined time period during which the one or more view metrics are measured. (the weekly report displays a time period descriptor [date range of March 17 through March 30th of 2012], which each of the glucose readings were taken, ¶¶ 640 and 647 and fig. 77.)
Claim 37:
The rejection of claim 36 is incorporated. Taub further teaches
wherein the predetermined time period is one week. (a date range is selectable for the report, Taub ¶ 640, and can include a period of “7 days” [one week], Taub ¶ 147)
Claim 38:
The rejection of claim 36 is incorporated. Taub further teaches
wherein the predetermined time period is a date range. (the weekly report displays a time period descriptor [date range of March 17 through March 30th of 2012], which each of the glucose readings were taken, Taub ¶¶ 640 and 647 and fig. 77.)
Claim 39:
The rejection of claim 36 is incorporated. Taub further teaches
wherein the predetermined time period is a time period relative to a current day. (a “current date” [current day] can be selected, ¶ 447, and any monitoring period can be selected, including 1 hour or more, ¶ 147 )
Claim 40:
The rejection of claim 31 is incorporated. Taub further teaches
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to output to the display an analyte monitoring system report interface, wherein the analyte monitoring system report interface includes the sensor usage interface. (the weekly report is an analyte monitoring system report, Abstract and fig. 77, as such, herein, it is broadly interpreted that the screen in which it is displayed is “an analyte monitoring system report interface”)
Claim 41:
The rejection of claim 40 is incorporated. Taub further teaches
wherein the analyte monitoring system report interface further includes a glucose trend interface comprising a glucose trend graph […] (the line graphs in fig. 77 are reflective of as trends [glucose trend graph], ¶ 16)
and a Glucose Management Indicator metric. (next to the line graphs, the daily portions of the report include and “average glucose” level for the reporting period, see ¶ 648 and fig. 77 and which is representative of a central tendency for all glucose measurement for the period, and is herein broadly interpreted as being indicative of a “Glucose Management Indicator metric”)
Taub further suggests:
that the glucose trend interface also comprises “a low glucose events graph” (a low glucose event can be seen in low reading representations in the, fig. 77, so the graph can be considered as “a low events graph”. Nevertheless, assuming arguendo that this teaching is not explicitly taught by Taub, it is suggested. In fig. 78, the low glucose events can be highlighted, ¶ 649 and fig. 78. Taub also discloses that different GUIs may be combined in some instances without compromising the underlying principles of the disclosure, ¶ 221).
Accordingly, 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 system of Taub to include that the glucose trend interface also comprises “a low glucose events graph”, as suggested by Taub.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to further enrich the user’s assessment data by combining information from different GUIs/reports, Taub ¶¶ 221 and 596.
Claim 42:
The rejection of claim 40 is incorporated. Taub further teaches
wherein the analyte monitoring system report interface further includes a health information interface comprising a daily carbohydrate intake metric (see “Carbs” intake in each daily line portion, fig. 77 and ¶ 647)
and medication dosage metrics. (see “Long-acting” and “Rapid-Acting” insulin dosage, ¶¶ 647-649 and fig. 77)
Claim 43:
The rejection of claim 40 is incorporated. Taub further suggests
wherein the analyte monitoring system report interface further includes a comments interface (snapshot report interface with comments section, ¶ 642 and fig. 72)
comprising information about the user's analyte and medication patterns presented in a narrative format. (the snapshot report contains “insulin information, such as…the amount of units of insulin (rapid acting and long acting) taken per day”, and “comments related to increase or decrease in number of daily glucose tests from the current time period compared to the past time period, possible sources of error in the snapshot data, or comparisons of the current time period results to the past time period”, ¶ 642 and fig. 72. Herein, it is broadly interpreted that this information is reflective of “information about the user's analyte and medication patterns presented in a narrative format”, since the information seems to tell a story of what occurred during the time period(s). Taub also discloses that different GUIs may be combined in some instances without compromising the underlying principles of the disclosure, ¶ 221)
Accordingly, 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 system of Taub to include wherein the analyte monitoring system report interface further includes a comments interface, comprising information about the user's analyte and medication patterns presented in a narrative format”, as suggested by Taub.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to further enrich the user’s assessment data by combining information from different GUIs/reports, Taub ¶¶ 221 and 596.
Independent Claim 47:
Taub teaches:
An analyte monitoring system, comprising: (Abstract and fig. 1)
a sensor control device comprising an analyte sensor coupled with sensor electronics, (analyte sensor 1101 coupled to body electronics 1110, ¶ 153 and fig. 1)
the sensor control device configured to measure a user’s analyte level in a bodily fluid (detecting at least one analyte such as glucose in body fluid, ¶¶ 133 and 136)
and to transmit data indicative of the analyte level; (the sensor transmits analyte monitoring data to a reader device, ¶ 746, which includes analyte levels, ¶ 147)
and a reader device comprising a display, wireless communication circuitry configured to receive the data indicative of the analyte level, (display devices, such as the reader device, include wireless communication ports for sensor derived data communication with other devices such as the body electronics 1110, ¶¶ 141 and 746 and fig. 1)
one or more processors coupled with a memory, the memory configured to store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (¶ 671)
output to the display a weekly summary report comprising a plurality of report portions, wherein each report portion represents a different day of a week, (weekly summary report and daily portions thereof, fig. 77 and ¶ 647)
and wherein each report portion comprises a glucose trend graph having one or more sensor usage markers, (each portion of the report includes a line graph having representations of glucose data readings, each indicative of when a sensor scan was taken [one or more sensor usage markers], ¶ 647 and fig. 77. Wherein the line graphs are used as trend graphs [glucose trend graph], ¶ 166)
Taub further suggests:
wherein each sensor usage marker indicates an instance in which a sensor results interface is rendered or brought into a foreground process, and wherein each sensor usage marker further indicates a count of a number of instances in which the sensor results interface is rendered or brought into the foreground process. (after successful sensor scans, a screen is displayed, e.g., a masked mode screen, such as screen 279, ¶ 262 and figs. 7 or fig. 12H, or unmasked mode screen 388 displaying details about the scan, ¶ 285 and fig. 10A. In either case, because an interface is provided based on successfully sensor scans, this is suggestive of “a sensor results interface is rendered or brought into a foreground process”. As such a person having ordinary skill in the art reading Taub would have understood that the indications of successful scans are indications, not only of a scanning activity by the user, but also of rendering a sensor results interface for “viewing” by the user. Furthermore, the reports of Taub are meant to be viewed by users, such as a physician, that may view and download the reports to assess the activities and events of the user, ¶ 596. Furthermore, sensor usage information concerning, e.g., a count of the number of daily scans that were taken during the time period, such reflected in ¶ 642 and fig. 72, is also indirectly suggestive of “a count of a number of instances an instance in which a sensor results interface is rendered or brought into a foreground process”, because, as explained above, for each successful scan an interface is rendered. Also, it was well within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that one or more of the information in the reports disclosed in Taub could be combined to enrich or customize/personalize the usage reports based on users’ preferences, e.g., see ¶¶ 187, 233-234, 526 and 574).
Accordingly, 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 system of Taub to include wherein each sensor usage marker indicates an instance in which a sensor results interface is rendered or brought into a foreground process, and wherein each sensor usage marker further indicates a count of a number of instances in which the sensor results interface is rendered or brought into the foreground process, as taught by Taub.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to usability of the system, as it would allow users, such as physicians, to have richer and/or customized/personalized assessment information concerning, and be better apprised of, the activities of their patients, Taub ¶ 596 and Taub ¶¶ 187, 233-234, 526 and 574.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taub (US 20140200426 A1), as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Nodder; Stephen (hereinafter Nodder – US 11792175 B1).
Claim 35:
The rejection of claim 31 is incorporated. Taub further discloses that reports are based on a selected period, such as a selected week or month [a predetermined time period], ¶ 605 and 640, and that different GUIs may be combined in some instances without compromising the underlying principles of the disclosure, ¶ 221, and that utilization of the meter devices can be included in a usage report, ¶ 233.
Taub does not appear to expressly teach, but Nodder teaches:
wherein the sensor usage interface further comprises a percentage time sensor active metric, wherein the percentage time sensor active metric is indicative of a percentage of a predetermined time period in which the reader device is in communication with the sensor control device (displaying an indication of utilization of a sensor which can include an indication a frequency that the at least one sensor is wirelessly synched with a control unit security system associated with the user and/or is providing data to the security system, and frequency for the sensor communication activities [wherein frequency, as exemplified in other activity frequency, is suggested as being indicative of a percent of time for the activity], col 21:55-62 and figs 1A-1B).
Accordingly, 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 system of Taub to include wherein the sensor usage interface further comprises a percentage time sensor active metric, wherein the percentage time sensor active metric is indicative of a percentage of a predetermined time period in which the reader device is in communication with the sensor control device, as taught by Nodder.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to further enrich the usage report for selected time period(s), Taub ¶¶ 233, 605 and 640, with utilization data for an additional device(s), e.g., sensor control device, Nodder col 21:55-62.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taub (US 20140200426 A1), as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Nodder; Stephen (hereinafter Nodder – US 11792175 B1) and Sundaram; Venkateswaran Tharuvai et al. (hereinafter Sundaram – US 20190166007 A1).
Claim 44:
The rejection of claim 40 is incorporated. Taub further discloses that different GUIs may be combined in some instances without compromising the underlying principles of the disclosure, ¶ 221, and that utilization of the meter devices can be included in a usage report, ¶ 233.
Taub further suggests:
wherein the one or more view metrics includes […] an average scans and views metric, (as mentioned above for claim 31, the indications of successful scans are suggestive of indications, not only of a scanning activity by the user, but also of rendering a sensor results interface for “viewing” by the user. [scans and views metric]. other screens [GUIs] display an average number of scans per day [suggestive of average scans and views metric], e.g., see ¶ 646 and fig. 76.)
Accordingly, 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 system of Taub to include wherein the one or more view metrics includes […] an average scans and views metric, as suggested by Taub.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to usability of the system, as it would allow users, such as physicians, to have richer assessment information concerning, and be better apprised of, the activities of their patients, Taub ¶ 596, including by combining information from different GUIs/reports, Taub ¶¶ 221 and 596.
Taub does not appear to expressly teach, but Nodder teaches:
that the wherein the one or more view metrics also includes “a percentage time sensor active metric, a percentage time sensor active graph”, (displaying an indication of utilization of a sensor which can include an indication a frequency that the at least one sensor is wirelessly synched with a control unit security system associated with the user and/or is providing data to the security system, and frequency for the sensor communication activities [wherein frequency, as exemplified in other activity frequency, is suggested as being indicative of a percent of time for the activity], col 21:55-62 and figs 1A-1B).
Accordingly, 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 system of Taub to include that the wherein the one or more view metrics also includes “a percentage time sensor active metric, a percentage time sensor active graph”, as taught by Nodder.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to further enrich the usage report for selected time period(s), Taub ¶¶ 233, 605 and 640, with utilization data for an additional device(s), e.g., sensor control device, Nodder col 21:55-62.
Taub does not appear to expressly teach, but Sundaram teaches:
wherein the average scans and views metric is indicative of an [aggregation] of a number of scans and a number of views (a system that calculates a utilization percentage by using an aggregation of different types of utilization metrics and displays the same in a user interface, Sundaram Claims 11 and 13 and ¶ 34. In applying the concepts of Sundaram to further modify Taub, the different types of utilization metrics would correspond to usage of the system, e.g., scans and views by the user).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Taub, as modified by Nodder, to include wherein the average scans and views metric is indicative of an [aggregation] of a number of scans and a number of views, as taught by Sundaram.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enrich the usage report for selected time period(s), with utilization data for an additional device(s), e.g., sensor control device, see discussion concerning Nodder above, by using a known and effective method for calculating the utilization, Sundaram Claims 11 and 13 and ¶ 34.
Still, as modified, Taub, does not appear to expressly teach that the aggregation is an “average sum”, but the examiner takes official notice that:
an “average sum” is a well-known type of aggregation function that simplifies analysis of large datasets.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Taub to include that the aggregation is an “average sum”, as taught by the official notice.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order improve the usability and efficiency of the system by applying a known well-known method of easily aggregating the utilization information.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taub (US 20140200426 A1), Nodder (US 11792175 B1) and Sundaram (US 20190166007 A1), as applied to claim 44 above, and further in view of Kamura; Minoru et al. (hereinafter Kamura – US 20180294046 A1).
Claim 45:
The rejection of claim 44 is incorporated. Taub does not appear to expressly teach, but Kamura teaches:
wherein an axis of the percentage time sensor active graph is aligned with a corresponding axis of one or more of a glucose trend graph or a low glucose events graph (a report displaying multiple graphs that are aligned along the same axis, ¶¶ 78 and 80 and fig. 6, in order to make information from the multiple graphs easier to understand, ¶ 80).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the system of Taub to include wherein an axis of the percentage time sensor active graph is aligned with a corresponding axis of one or more of a glucose trend graph or a low glucose events graph, as taught by Kamura.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability of the system by making information in order to make information from the multiple graphs easier to understand, Kamura ¶ 80, the enriched usage report, Taub ¶¶ 233, 605 and 640, displaying utilization data, Nodder col 21:55-62.
Response to Arguments
Correction of a comment in previous office action:
“the corrections to drawing(s) of FIG(s). 2D-2I, 4A-4J, 5A-5F, 9D-9F, 10B-10D, and 11B-11D”, which were filed on 7/1/2025, “are acceptable” (not “unacceptable”, as previously stated–this was a typo), as reflected in the office action summary of the previous action.
Applicant's 103 arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are otherwise moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
First, the applicant alleges that “the cited references, whether considered individually or in a proper combination, fail to teach, describe, or suggest all of the limitations of the pending claims”, as amended, (Remarks Pages 6-7), and suggests that “As amended, claim 31 requires that view metrics comprise "a count of a number of instances in which the sensor results interface is rendered or brought into the foreground process," which reflects tracking and presentation of interface rendering instances as usage information, rather than merely displaying an interface following a scan. See e.g., FIG. 5A, elements 502 and 504”, Remarks Page 8.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because Taub also suggests a tracking of a count of as using information, by disclosing a count of scans, as explained in more details the 103 rejection section above.
Second, the applicant relies on the argument above to allege patentability of the remaining claims. Remarks Pages 8-9.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reason(s) presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Kamath; Apurv Ullas et al. (US 20200203012 A1, pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a system including a device that pulls glucose levels monitoring data from sensor(s) using wireless communication, and provides different user interfaces for users to monitor the data, see at least Abstract and ¶¶ 298 and 398 and fig. 13,
Kubiak; Erik N. et al. (US 20130150755 A1), is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing tracking the number of times a patient views his movement/compliance data, ¶ 167.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. 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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171