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
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment received on 11/26/2025.
Claims 1-4, 17-19, and 21-24 have been amended.
Claims 10-16 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Applicant argues that claim 1, as amended, is directed to patent eligible subject matter. Claims 17 and 21 are amended to include similar features as claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 1-9 and 21-27 under 35 U.S.C. 101 be withdrawn.
Response: Examiner disagrees.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“identifying usage data associated with an application that is to be executed using a computing system” is directed to math because analyzing usage data often involves applying statistical methods to understand patterns, calculate frequencies, and identify trends. Optimization techniques, often mathematically defined, can be employed to improve application performance or resource allocation based on usage data analysis.
“determining, based on the identified usage data, whether one or more operations of the application satisfy at least one of a processing cycle criterion or a power consumption criterion” is directed to math because the entire process is fundamentally mathematical and statistical in nature. It's not just a casual connection; the entire framework for defining, measuring, and evaluating these criteria is built upon mathematical principles, statistical models, and the logic of computation. The act of "determining whether" something satisfies a criterion is a logical operation, a concept from mathematical logic and Boolean algebra. The application logic itself is a product of mathematical thought: the programmer uses mathematical/logical structures (if-statements, loops, comparisons) to define the conditions for satisfaction. The computer's underlying architecture, the binary system it uses to perform calculations, is a direct application of Boolean logic and discrete mathematics.
“based on the determination, routing the one or more of operations of the application to the integrated processing unit or the discrete processing unit in view of at least one of one or more system performance metrics” is directed to math because the process of dynamically routing application operations to either an integrated processing unit (iGPU) or a discrete processing unit (dGPU) based on system performance metrics absolutely relates to mathematics, particularly applied mathematics and computer science theory, although the direct mathematical calculations are generally abstracted away within sophisticated algorithms and system software. The underlying decision-making mechanisms, performance modeling, and optimization goals are deeply rooted in mathematical concepts.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “sensor, body part, and measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of "identifying usage data associated with an application that is to be executed using a computing system; determining, based on the identified usage data, whether one or more operations of the application satisfy at least one of a processing cycle criterion or a power consumption criterion; based on the determination, routing the one or more of operations of the application to the integrated processing unit or the discrete processing unit in view of at least one of one or more system performance metrics” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“identifying usage data associated with an application that is to be executed using a computing system, wherein the computing system comprises an integrated processing unit and a discrete processing unit” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining, based on the identified usage data, whether one or more operations of the application satisfy at least one of a processing cycle criterion or a power consumption criterion” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“based on the determination, routing the one or more of operations of the application to the integrated processing unit or the discrete processing unit in view of at least one of one or more system performance metrics or one or more user experience metrics associated with executing the application using the integrated processing unit and the discrete processing unit” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“identifying usage data associated with an application that is to be executed using a computing system, wherein the computing system comprises an integrated processing unit and a discrete processing unit” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining, based on the identified usage data, whether one or more operations of the application satisfy at least one of a processing cycle criterion or a power consumption criterion” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“based on the determination, routing the one or more of operations of the application to the integrated processing unit or the discrete processing unit in view of at least one of one or more system performance metrics or one or more user experience metrics associated with executing the application using the integrated processing unit and the discrete processing unit” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 17 is similar to claim 1 but recites a processor comprising one or more processing units to perform the steps as in claim 1. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 17 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 17.
Claim 21 is similar to claim 1 but recites a system comprising a processing device to perform to perform the steps as in claim 1. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 21 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 21.
-Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach, "determining, based on the identified usage data, whether one or more operations of the application satisfy at least one of a processing cycle criterion or a power consumption criterion," and "based on the determination, routing the one or more operations to the integrated processing unit or the discrete processing unit” as cited in claim 1.
Examiner agrees, therefore the rejection under 103 of claims 1, 17, and 21 has been withdrawn.
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 1-9 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-9 is directed to a method, claim 17-20 is directed to a processer, and claims 21-27 is directed to a system. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
A method comprising:
identifying usage data associated with an application that is to be executed using a computing system, wherein the computing system comprises an integrated processing unit and a discrete processing unit;
determining, based on the identified usage data, whether one or more operations of the application satisfy at least one of a processing cycle criterion or a power consumption criterion; and
causing at least a portion of operations of the application to be executed using the integrated processing unit or the discrete processing based on the usage data and in view of at least one of one or more system performance metrics or one or more user experience metrics associated with executing the application using the integrated processing unit and the discrete processing unit.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“identifying usage data associated with an application that is to be executed using a computing system” is directed to math because analyzing usage data often involves applying statistical methods to understand patterns, calculate frequencies, and identify trends. Optimization techniques, often mathematically defined, can be employed to improve application performance or resource allocation based on usage data analysis.
“determining, based on the identified usage data, whether one or more operations of the application satisfy at least one of a processing cycle criterion or a power consumption criterion” is directed to math because the entire process is fundamentally mathematical and statistical in nature. It's not just a casual connection; the entire framework for defining, measuring, and evaluating these criteria is built upon mathematical principles, statistical models, and the logic of computation. The act of "determining whether" something satisfies a criterion is a logical operation, a concept from mathematical logic and Boolean algebra. The application logic itself is a product of mathematical thought: the programmer uses mathematical/logical structures (if-statements, loops, comparisons) to define the conditions for satisfaction. The computer's underlying architecture, the binary system it uses to perform calculations, is a direct application of Boolean logic and discrete mathematics.
“based on the determination, routing the one or more of operations of the application to the integrated processing unit or the discrete processing unit in view of at least one of one or more system performance metrics” is directed to math because the process of dynamically routing application operations to either an integrated processing unit (iGPU) or a discrete processing unit (dGPU) based on system performance metrics absolutely relates to mathematics, particularly applied mathematics and computer science theory, although the direct mathematical calculations are generally abstracted away within sophisticated algorithms and system software. The underlying decision-making mechanisms, performance modeling, and optimization goals are deeply rooted in mathematical concepts.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “sensor, body part, and measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of "identifying usage data associated with an application that is to be executed using a computing system; determining, based on the identified usage data, whether one or more operations of the application satisfy at least one of a processing cycle criterion or a power consumption criterion; based on the determination, routing the one or more of operations of the application to the integrated processing unit or the discrete processing unit in view of at least one of one or more system performance metrics” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“identifying usage data associated with an application that is to be executed using a computing system, wherein the computing system comprises an integrated processing unit and a discrete processing unit” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining, based on the identified usage data, whether one or more operations of the application satisfy at least one of a processing cycle criterion or a power consumption criterion” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“based on the determination, routing the one or more of operations of the application to the integrated processing unit or the discrete processing unit in view of at least one of one or more system performance metrics or one or more user experience metrics associated with executing the application using the integrated processing unit and the discrete processing unit” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“identifying usage data associated with an application that is to be executed using a computing system, wherein the computing system comprises an integrated processing unit and a discrete processing unit” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining, based on the identified usage data, whether one or more operations of the application satisfy at least one of a processing cycle criterion or a power consumption criterion” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“based on the determination, routing the one or more of operations of the application to the integrated processing unit or the discrete processing unit in view of at least one of one or more system performance metrics or one or more user experience metrics associated with executing the application using the integrated processing unit and the discrete processing unit” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 17 is similar to claim 1 but recites a processor comprising one or more processing units to perform the steps as in claim 1. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 17 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 17.
Claim 21 is similar to claim 1 but recites a system comprising a processing device to perform to perform the steps as in claim 1. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 21 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 21.
Dependent claims 2-9, 18-20, and 22-27 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Hence the claims 1-9 and 17-27 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hahn (USP 11,138,025) disclose a system configured for providing an interactive developer interface of a group-based communication system, the system comprising at least one processor, and at least one non-transitory memory comprising instructions that, with the at least one processor, cause the system to: receive application data provided via an interactive developer interface from a developer client device, the application data comprising processing action data and user engagement pane data, wherein at least a portion of the processing action data defines a functionality of a processing action, and wherein at least a portion of the user engagement pane data comprises block data associated with one or more user engagement blocks configured to reflect execution of one or more user engagement pane instructions corresponding to one or more functionalities of an application; based at least in part on a determination that the processing action data satisfies a user interface criteria, generate one or more executable processing action elements for display with an application home interface associated with the application; and store the application data within a group-based communication repository; wherein the user engagement pane data is configured for display within the application user interface via the one or more user engagement blocks; and wherein the processing action data comprises processing action type data associated with the processing action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857