DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to the submission filed on 1/25/2023 . Claims 17-32 are presented for examination. 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. 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) is/are: “first acquisition unit acquiring” and “second acquisition unit acquiring” and “correction unit correcting” in claim 28. 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 : however , there is no corresponding structure described in the specification . 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 § 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 28 and 30 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 matte r 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. 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) is/are: “first acquisition unit acquiring” and “second acquisition unit acquiring” and “correction unit correcting” in claim 28. 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: however , there is no corresponding structure described in the specification. The entirety of claim 30 recites “ A model generated by machine learning with insolation data and weather data as an input variable and insolation data after correction as an output variable ”. It is unclear what is considered the body of the claim and what is considered the preamble. L anguage recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. , 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 17-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires: 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category; 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106). Step 1: With respect to claims 17-32 , applying step 1, the preamble of independent claims 1 and 28-32 claim a method, device, medium, model, method and method . C laims 17,28, 29, 31 and 32 fall within the statutory categories of process, machine, article of manufacture, process and process. Claim 30 does not fall into any statutory category. See below. Step 2A, prong one: In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded. An insolation correction method, comprising: acquiring insolation data; acquiring weather data; and correcting the acquired insolation data, on the basis of the acquired weather data (mental process – observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) . The limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves correcting data. The correcting data step is simple enough/broadly claimed that it could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Thus, limitations noted above also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas. Step 2A, prong two: Under step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations: acquiring insolation data (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)) , acquiring weather data (insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering MPEP 2106.05(g)) . Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Step 2B: Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as "apply it" or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations is considered directed data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, as Berkheimer evidence that the claim elements “acquiring insolation data”, “acquiring weather data” are Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional, MPEP § 2106.05(d) (II) provides support that mere data collecting is well understood, routine, and conventional: "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well- understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra- solution activity: • Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) • Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 • Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Independent claims 28-32 are directed to substantially the same subject matter as independent claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. The same conclusion is reached for the dependent claims 18-26. Dependent claims 18-26 are further directed towards limitations as analyzed include concepts directed to the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim involves the data that is acquired or corrected. The steps are simple enough/broadly claimed that it could be performed mentally or with pen and paper. Thus, limitations also fall into the "mental process" groupings of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent claim 30 is drawn to a model generated by machine learning. The model could be interpreted to comprise only software elements. According to the current guidance, a system that qualifies as a patent eligible system under 35 USC 101 cannot consist only of software per se. If the system consists only of software per se, the system is not a patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Because the instant claims could comprise software per se, the claims are being held as non-statutory under 35 USC 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 17-18, 21-22 , 26, 28, and 2 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10506767 B2 (“Nagatomo”) . Regarding claim s 17 , 28, and 29 , Nagatomo teaches: An insolation correction method, comprising: acquiring insolation data ( Nagatomo: col. 3, lines 26-28, “ In the installation evaluation apparatus for a greenhouse, the sensor preferably includes an illuminance sensor or a solar radiation sensor ” ) ; acquiring weather data ( Nagatomo: col. 3, lines 5-8, “ In the installation evaluation apparatus, the sensor preferably includes at least one type of sensor selected from a group including a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, and a soil moisture sensor ” ) ; and correcting the acquired insolation data, on the basis of the acquired weather data ( Nagatomo: col. 12, lines 16-22, “ In this case, variation in the insolation amount due to weather conditions is preferably taken into account. When the effect of the weather conditions on the insolation amount is taken into account, the insolation amount may be corrected on the basis of past meteorological data relating to the planned location 22 ” ) . Regarding claim 18, Nagatomo teaches: The insolation correction method according to claim 17, wherein the acquired insolation data is corrected by using a model with the insolation data and the weather data as an input variable ( Nagatomo: col. 17, lines 38-43, “ when a plurality of greenhouses 20 are disposed, light transmitted through the adjacent greenhouse 20 is emitted onto the surface of the plowed soil, and therefore the insolation evaluation unit 32 corrects the insolation amount in accordance with the effect of the adjacent greenhouse 20 ”; evaluation unit 32 is the model ) . Regarding claim 21, Nagatomo teaches: The insolation correction method according to claim 18, wherein the input variable of the model includes at least one of air temperature data ( Nagatomo: col. 3, lines 5-8, “ In the installation evaluation apparatus, the sensor preferably includes at least one type of sensor selected from a group including a temperature sensor ” ) , air temperature difference data, humidity difference data or apparent temperature difference data, cloudage data, direct insolation data, a combination of air temperature data and dew-point temperature data, a combination of air temperature data and wind-chill temperature data, a combination of air temperature data and apparent temperature data, a combination of air temperature data and heat index data, and scattered insolation data in a predetermined period, and weather data including at least one of the air temperature data ( Nagatomo: col. 3, lines 5-8, “ In the installation evaluation apparatus, the sensor preferably includes at least one type of sensor selected from a group including a temperature sensor ” ) , the air temperature difference data, the humidity difference data or the apparent temperature difference data, the cloudage data, the direct insolation data, the combination of the air temperature data and the dew-point temperature data, the combination of the air temperature data and the wind-chill temperature data, the combination of the air temperature data and the apparent temperature data, the combination of the air temperature data and the heat index data, and the scattered insolation data in the predetermined period is acquired. Regarding claim 22, Nagatomo teaches: The insolation correction method according to claim 18, wherein the input variable of the model includes insolation data corrected on the basis of the acquired weather data, and the insolation data is further corrected by acquiring the corrected insolation data ( Nagatomo: col. 12, lines 16-22, “ In this case, variation in the insolation amount due to weather conditions is preferably taken into account. When the effect of the weather conditions on the insolation amount is taken into account, the insolation amount may be corrected on the basis of past meteorological data relating to the planned location 22 ” ) . Regarding claim 26, Nagatomo teaches: The insolation correction method according to claim 17, wherein the insolation data is acquired from a weather information service provider ( Nagatomo: col. 3, lines 5-8, “ In the installation evaluation apparatus, the sensor preferably includes at least one type of sensor selected from a group including a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, and a soil moisture sensor ” ) . Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20170371073 A1 (“Suzuki”) . Regarding claim 30, Suzuki teaches: A model generated by machine learning with insolation data and weather data as an input variable and insolation data after correction as an output variable ( Suzuki: para [0044] , “ The meteorological data includes data of at least one of items affecting a natural energy power generation amount, a solar radiation amount, and a wind speed. For example, items such as temperature, humidity, wind direction, wind speed, precipitation, weather, an upper cloud amount, a middle cloud amount, a lower cloud amount, a total cloud amount, a surface pressure, a sea level pressure, and a solar radiation amount are considered for the meteorological data, but the meteorological data is not limited thereto. In a case where actual data is accumulated for each observation site, the actual value or the prediction value of each observation site is entered in the field of meteorological data ”; para [0012], “ a prediction apparatus including a prediction expression acquisition unit that acquires a prediction expression for predicting a natural energy power generation amount, a solar radiation amount, or a wind speed at a target time which is generated by machine learning based on training data over plural days with a feature value extracted from meteorological data from m (m is 2 or more) hours before the target time to the target time as an explanatory variable, and the natural energy power generation amount, the solar radiation amount, or the wind speed at the target time as an objective variable, a meteorological data acquisition unit that acquires meteorological data up to the target time on a prediction target day, a feature value extraction unit that extracts the feature value from meteorological data from m hours before the target time to the target time on the prediction target day, and a first estimation unit that estimates a natural energy power generation amount, a solar radiation amount, or a wind speed at the target time on the prediction target day, based on the prediction expression acquired by the prediction expression acquisition unit and the feature value extracted by the feature value extraction unit ” ) . 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. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10506767 B2 (“Nagatomo”) in view of US 20100310116 A1 (“Sasakawa”) . Regarding claim 31, Nagatomo teaches: A model generating method, comprising: acquiring insolation data and weather data ( Nagatomo: col. 3, lines 26-28, “ In the installation evaluation apparatus for a greenhouse, the sensor preferably includes an illuminance sensor or a solar radiation sensor ”; col. 3, lines 5-8, “ In the installation evaluation apparatus, the sensor preferably includes at least one type of sensor selected from a group including a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, and a soil moisture sensor ”) ; acquiring insolation data after correction ( Nagatomo: col. 12, lines 16-22, “ In this case, variation in the insolation amount due to weather conditions is preferably taken into account. When the effect of the weather conditions on the insolation amount is taken into account, the insolation amount may be corrected on the basis of past meteorological data relating to the planned location 22 ” ) Nagatomo does not teach but Sasakawa does teach: generating a model with the insolation data and the weather data as an input variable and the insolation data after correction as an output variable ( Sasakawa: para [0028] , “ In order to evaluate the solar radiation amount based on the static satellite image data 1, the calculation part 23, as shown in FIG. 2, is configured to have map model combin ation means 10, evaluated area setting means 11, shadow determination means 12, slope correction calculation means 14, and solar radiation amount evaluation means 1 3”, para [0029] , “ The map model combination means 10 combines the static satellite image data 1 with the three-dimensional map data 21. Namely, the map model combination means 10 applies geometric correction to the static satellite image data 1 to align the static satellite image data 1 with the three-dimensional map data 21 through the coordinate information, and, thus, to combine the static satellite image data 1 with the three-dimensional map data 21. Since the coordinate accuracy of the static satellite image data 1 is low, the alignment is slightly less accurate. Therefore, the map model combination means 10 is provided with a combination point setting part (not shown) which extracts the shoreline and so on as a combination point, whereby in the alignment, error modification is applied by matching the combination points ”) . Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Nagatomo (directed to correcting insolation data ) and Sasakawa (directed to generating a model ) and arrived at generating a model with corrected insolation data . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to provide a method and apparatus for evaluating a solar radiation amount that can improve the accuracy by considering terrain conditions (Sasakawa: para [0007]) . Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 19-20, 23-25, 27, and 32 contain allowable subject matter. T he claims will be allowable if the rejections under 35 USC 101 and 112 are overcome. T he independent claims will be in condition for allowance when the allowable dependent claims are incorporated into the independent claims, in addition to overcoming the 35 USC 101 and 112 rejections . Nagatomo, Suzuki and Sasakawa teach a method for correcting insolation data. However, these references and the remaining prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest (claim 19) “wherein the input variable of the model includes dew-point depression data, and weather data including the dew-point depression data is acquired”, (claim 20) “wherein the input variable of the model includes logarithmic data of humidity data, and weather data including the logarithmic data of the humidity data is acquired” (claim 23) “wherein weather data including dew-point depression data is acquired, and when the acquired dew-point depression data is less than a predetermined dew-point depression threshold value, the acquired insolation data is corrected ”, (claim 24) “wherein weather data including air pressure data above sea level is acquired, and when the acquired air pressure data above sea level is a predetermined air pressure threshold value or less, the acquired insolation data is corrected” , (claim 25) “wherein weather data including air pressure data above sea level is acquired, and when a difference between a predetermined value and the acquired air pressure data above sea level is a predetermined difference threshold value or more, the acquired insolation data is corrected ”, (claim 27) “wherein selection of a required weather information service provider among a plurality of weather information service providers is received, and the acquired insolation data is corrected by using the model corresponding to the selected weather information service provider”, (claim 32 ) “storing a plurality of different models generated by machine learning with insolation data and weather data as an input variable and insolation data after correction as an output variable; receiving selection of a required weather information service provider among a plurality of weather information service providers; and providing a model corresponding to the selected weather information service provider, among the plurality of different models” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record. Additional References Cited The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the attached PTOL-892. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1003 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Rehana Perveen can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3676 . 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. /NITHYA J. MOLL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189