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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the election/restriction response filed on 10/16/25.
Claims 1-7 are currently pending and have been examined.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I, Claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 10/16/25, is acknowledged.
Priority/Continuity
Status of this application as 371 of PCT/KR2021/018015, filed 12/01/2021, and claiming priority to foreign application KR10-2020-0185840, filed 12/29/2020, is acknowledged. A certified copy of the application filed in Korea was received on 06/29/2023. Accordingly, a priority date of 12/29/2020 has been given to the instant application.
IDS
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/29/23 has been considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-7 are drawn to a method, which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-7 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites implementing the steps of:
acquiring current location information of a user, and
displaying at least one of a dangerous path or a dangerous location included in infectious disease transmission information to the user with reference to the acquired current location information; and
comparing the current location information with the infectious disease transmission information to output a notification to a user.
These steps amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people and therefore recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Obtaining a user’s location, displaying information regarding a dangerous path or dangerous location to the user based on received infectious disease information with respect to the user’s obtained location, and comparing the user’s current location with the infectious disease information to provide a notification to the user is a personal behavior that may be performed by a healthcare/public health personnel.
The above claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional
elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claim 1 additionally recites:
a smart device as a computerized means of representing a user’s location
a display provided in the smart device as implementing the step of displaying at least one of a dangerous path or dangerous location
The broad recitation of general purpose computing elements at a high level of generality only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing components as tools.
Regarding the smart device and display provided in the smart device, para. [0047] discloses “A smart device, which is referred to as a device possessed or carried by a user, may include a portable terminal such as a smart phone, a PDA, a tablet PC, or the like, and furthermore, a wearable device such as smart glasses, a smart watch, or the like”; para. [0048] discloses “When the above smart devices are viewed in terms of hardware, it is assumed that each of the smart devices has a central processing unit (CPU) and a memory. The central processing unit may also be referred to as a controller, a microcontroller, a microprocessor, a microcomputer, and the like. Furthermore, the central processing unit may be implemented by hardware or firmware, software, or a combination thereof, and when the central processing unit is implemented using hardware, it may be configured as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) or a digital signal processor (DSP), a digital signal processing device (DSPD), a programmable logic device (PLD), or a field programmable gate array (FPGA), and when the central processing unit is implemented using firmware or software, the firmware or software may be configured to include a module, a procedure, a function or the like that performs functions or operations as described above. In addition, the memory may be implemented as read only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), erasable programmable read only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory, static RAM (SRAM), a hard disk drive (HDD), a solid-state drive (SSD), or the like”; para. [0050] discloses “the smart device 100 may largely include a communication unit 101, a location identification unit 102, a display unit 103, and a control unit 106, and additionally, may further include a notification unit 104 and a posture detection unit 105”; para. [0053] discloses “it will be understood that the display unit 103 is a component that outputs various information including infectious disease transmission information to the user, and there is no limitation to its display method as long as the user is able to view a series of information through his or her eyes on a smartphone or smart glasses”. Therefore, these elements are given their broadest reasonable interpretation as general purpose computing elements functioning in their ordinary capacities.
B. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 1 additionally recites
receiving infectious disease transmission information from a service server
This step only amounts to insignificant extra-solution (pre-solution) activity in the form of mere data gathering.
These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claim 1 only recites the aforementioned computing elements as tools for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f).
B. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Likewise, as explained above, the step of receiving infectious disease transmission information from a service server, only amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering.
C. Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional Activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)
In addition to amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity the elements in Section B above constitute well-understood, routine and conventional activity. The step of receiving infectious disease transmission information from a service server only amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been previously held to be well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the
above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds
nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their
collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Depending Claims
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims. For example, Claims 2, 3, 6, 7 recite limitations which further narrow the scope of the independent claim. Claims 4, 5 further recite limitations that are certain methods of organizing human activity:
Claim 4 recites limitations pertaining to tracking a user's gaze and outputting a predetermined notification when it is detected that the user's gaze is directed toward a front center thereof, which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using computing elements. Regarding the smart glasses further comprise a gaze sensor, per paras. [0064], [0065], these elements are understood to amount to using general purpose computing elements implement the steps of tracking gaze and outputting a notification when a condition is met (user’s gaze is forward a front center). This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites limitations pertaining to outputting at least one of a dangerous path and a dangerous place included in the infectious disease transmission information overlaid on a captured image, which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using computing elements. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1, “display” is understood to amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. Recitation of “a video photographed through a photographing unit provided in the smart glasses” amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. Per paras. [0064], [0065], these elements are understood to amount to using general purpose computing elements to overlay a dangerous path/dangerous place on imagery captured by a camera. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as they include all of the limitations of claim 1. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea. Beyond the limitations which recite the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements consistent with those identified above with respect to the independent claims which encompass adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7 recite additional subject matter which amounts to additional elements consistent with those identified in the analysis of Claim 1 above. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1 and integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, recitation of these additional elements only amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent claims 2-7, 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 without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
For the reasons stated, Claims 1-7 fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gurpur et. al. (US Publication 20220157474A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Gurpur discloses:
receiving infectious disease transmission information from a service server ([0030] teaches on a Susceptibility Observer System which is in communication with entities including a computing device, literature source, health source; [0032] teaches on a Susceptibility Observer System 202 which receives information; [0035] teaches on literature source 206 comprising information on outbreak susceptibility and risk factors; [0036] teaches on selection of literature source which may be CDC or local to a particular county; [0037] teaches on the Susceptibility Observer System scanning literature sources 206 in response to determination of an outbreak of a particular infectious disease at a particular time and location based on a literature source 206; [0038] teaches on Susceptibility Observer System 202 scanning literature sources for outbreak information; per [0039] context data relating to outbreak may include date, hour, and location of the outbreak; Examiner interprets the literature source 206 as synonymous with “service server”; Examiner interprets the outbreak information to read on “infectious disease transmission information”);
acquiring current location information of the smart device ([0033] teaches on the computing device 204 transmitting location information to the Susceptibility Observer System; location information may comprise positioning information (coordinates) of a previous or current location of a device of the user; location information may be GPS coordinates; location information may be absolute or relative position of the computing device; per [0030] computing device 204 may be any of various smart devices including a cell phone, PC, laptop, or a wearable device such as smartwatches, smart eyewear, smart clothing, etc.), and
displaying at least one of a dangerous path or a dangerous location included in the infectious disease transmission information through a display provided in the smart device with reference to the acquired current location information ([0049] teaches on sending a notification/message to alert a patient when they are entering a location where a previous individual contracted the infectious disease; [0050] and Fig. 3 teach on a display screen of the patient device with a map showing infectious disease outbreak hotspots (interpreted as “dangerous location”) showing “ALERT” with the message “You are within 10 miles of an active hotspot of an outbreak” with a map showing shaded regions; per [0051] the alert comprises “extremely high risk area notifications” (306 shaded black on map in Fig. 3) and “high risk area notifications” (308 shaded grey on map in Fig. 3)) – displaying a dangerous location included in transmission information with reference to acquired location information); and
comparing the current location information with the infectious disease transmission information to output a notification to a user ([0049] teaches on providing output such as a notification, message, escalated alert, etc. sent to patients to avoid contracting the outbreak specific to the patient being notified, e.g., the notification may be sent when the patient is entering a location where a previous individual contracted the infectious disease within a predefined amount of time prior to the patient entering the location; the message is sent via the smart device (text message, instant message, email); [0050] teaches on a GUI displaying an example alert message in Fig. 3 comprising an alert message and a map; the alert may be audio, haptic, or both; example message may indicate an outbreak has occurred, type of infectious disease, information about transmission, etc.; the message may indicate a recipient is within a certain distance from the outbreak; a message may indicate a location of a closest occurrent of the outbreak to a location of the recipient; [0053] teaches on providing an escalated alert to a patient “at a distance above a threshold from the location of the outbreak”; if the system can determine the patient distance to the outbreak location is above a threshold, or that the patient is within 10 miles of an active hotspot, it is understood that the two locations have been compared to make the determination of distance exceeding a threshold or that patient is within 10 miles; see Fig. 3 which shows a map of with a shaded (306) region and an alert displaying “You are within 10 miles of an active hotspot of an outbreak”).
Regarding Claim 2, Gurpur discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Gurpur further discloses wherein the smart device receives infectious disease transmission information at preset time intervals from the service server ([0043] teaches on the Susceptibility Observer System 202 providing updates upon occurrence of an update to the literature source after a “predetermined amount of time”; for example; a literature source may be updated “at the end of each business day” which is interpreted as a “preset time interval”).
Regarding Claim 3, Gurpur discloses the limitations of Claim 3. Gurpur further discloses wherein the smart device is smart glasses ([0030] teaches on examples of the computing device comprising various electronic devices including “smart eyewear”).
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurpur et. al. (US Publication 20220157474A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Benedetto et. al. (US Publication 20170354883A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Gurpur discloses the limitations of Claim 3. Gurpur discloses
smart glasses ([0030] teaches on “smart eyewear”)
a predetermined notification ([0049] teaches on providing a notification to a patients when the patient is entering a location where a previous individual contracted the infectious disease within a predefined amount of time prior to the patient entering the location; [0053] teaches on sending a message to a patient who is at distance above a threshold from an outbreak location; sending such notifications are interpreted as “predetermined” as they are sent when a particular condition is met (predetermined), e.g., a threshold distance or entering an infected location).
Gurpur does not disclose the following, but Benedetto, which is directed to a method for providing information in a head-mounted display (HMD), teaches: wherein the [head mounted display] further comprise a gaze sensor that tracks a user's gaze ([0090] teaches on a gaze tracking camera which is included in the head-mounted display (HMD); the gaze tracking camera (interpreted as a “gaze sensor”) captures images of the user’s eyes which are analyzed to determine the gaze direction of the user (synonymous with tracking a user’s gaze)), and wherein the [head mounted display] output [information] when it is detected that the user's gaze is directed toward a front center thereof ([0013] teaches on providing information in a head mounted display (HMD); an “active zone” is defined and content placed in the active zone of the VR viewing environment, e.g., the content is presented when the gaze of the user is directed towards the active zone (directed “forwards” into the VR viewing environment; interpreted as “front center”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combined teachings of Gurpur with these teachings of Benedetto, to use a head-mounted device (e.g., smart glasses of Gurpur; Examiner submits that both a HMD and smart glasses are a means of displaying information to the individual) with a gaze sensor to track a user’s gaze and provide information (e.g., the predetermined notification of Gurpur) when it is determined that the user’s gaze is toward a front center with the motivation of presenting information in the proper direction from the user when the user is looking straight ahead (Benedetto [0010]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurpur et. al. (US Publication 20220157474A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Jones et. al. (US Publication 20200020162A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Gurpur discloses the limitations of Claim 3. Gurpur further discloses
smart glasses ([0030] teaches on “smart eyewear”).
Gurpur does not disclose the following, but Jones, which is directed to a computerized head-mounted display which provides directional guidance to the wearer, teaches: wherein the outputting through the display is displaying and outputting at least one of a dangerous path and a dangerous place included in the transmission information on a video photographed through a photographing unit provided in the [head mounted display] ([0100] teaches on a worker wearing a head mounted display (HMD) through which the worker can see “virtual barriers” when she/he is in front of a dangerous item (synonymous with “dangerous place”); [0101] teaches that by wearing the HMD, the wearer can see virtual path indicators which are generated by identifying a current location using GPS, sensing real objects by a sensor or obtaining geographical data; calculating a route which avoids the real objects, and displaying virtual path indicators in accordance with calculated route; “virtual barriers” may be shown to the user to keep the device wearer away from dangerous areas; Examiner interprets display of “virtual barriers” to read on outputting, through the display, a “dangerous place”; [0103] teaches on the HMD obtaining data of dangerous areas from data obtained from a remote server – interpreted as “transmission information”); [0077] teaches on the hybrid reality (HR) system rendering an image of a virtual barrier on the display at a position corresponding to a real world position of a barrier; instructions instruct the HR system to render the virtual barrier using images determined by information received by the HR system related to conditions occluded behind the world position of the barrier; [0023] teaches on “Hybrid Reality” (HR) as an image that merges real-world imagery with imagery created in a computer; HR can be a still image or moving image created using a video stream; sensors of the HR system may include a camera that captures images in the visible spectrum, which is interpreted as reading on broadest reasonable interpretation of “photographing unit” in view of Applicant’s specification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Gurpur with these teachings of Jones, to display and output a dangerous place included in the infectious disease transmission information (taught by Gurpur per Claim 1) on a video photographed through a photographing unit of a head-mounted device (e.g., smart glasses of Gurpur; Examiner submits that both a HMD and smart glasses are a means of displaying information to the individual) with the motivation of providing an overlay on the display to indicate a barrier to recommend the user’s movements be restricted to avoid a hazard (Jones [0045]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurpur et. al. (US Publication 20220157474A1) in view of Jones et. al. (US Publication 20200020162A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Jain et. al. (US Patent 11504011B1).
Regarding Claim 6, Gurpur/Jones teach the limitations of Claim 5 but do not teach the following. Jain, which is directed to early detection and prevention of infectious disease transmission using location data and geofencing, teaches: wherein the dangerous path comprises a travel path of a confirmed patient or a travel path of another user who has traveled on a path at least part of which overlaps the travel path of the confirmed patient (Fig. 15C/Col. 88 lines 8-25 teach on tagging locations visited by individuals who have had a positive test result for Covid-19; see Fig. 16B; see Col 89 Lines 1-21 with respect to Fig. 16B, which shows tracked paths traveled by users through the community which may be determined via passive location tracking; paths that users travel can be used by computer system to determine exposure risks to infectious disease; individuals (2) and (3) in Fig. 16B show the travel paths of two different individuals with “reported symptoms” which is interpreted as a travel path of a confirmed patient).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the combined teachings of Gurpur/Jones with these teachings of Jain, so that a dangerous path comprises a travel path of a confirmed patient, because certain infectious disease transmission does not require an individual to be the same place at the same time as an infected individual, because airborne infectious particulates can remain viable for up to 4, 8 or even 12 hours depending on environment, and because infectious particles can also remain on and be transmitted on surfaces for significant periods of time (Jain Col. 11 lines 7-13).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurpur et. al. (US Publication 20220157474A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
Taylor (US Publication 20160080163 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Gurpur discloses the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following. Taylor, which is directed to crowd-sourced navigation alerts, teaches: wherein the notification varies an output method thereof according to a distance from the dangerous path or dangerous place based on current location information acquired in real time ([0021] teaches on a UE (“user equipment” device, [0005]) in a vehicle communicating warnings to a driver through a user interface based on proximity of the vehicle to a traffic event; the UE may compare the location of the traffic event with the current position of the vehicle, provided by GPS receiver (synonymous with current location acquired in real time); when a vehicle is within 15 miles of a hazard, “a message may be displayed on the UE” so the driver is aware of the hazard (displaying a message is interpreted as first output method for notification); as the vehicle gets closer to the hazard, the UE may generate a sound (interpreted as a second output method – e.g., varying the output method from visual display to sound, according to distance to a hazard)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Gurpur with these teachings of Taylor, so that the notification output method varies according to a distance from a dangerous place (e.g., an infected location as taught by Gurpur) with the motivation of increasing the urgency of the alert as the user gets closer to the hazard (Taylor [0021]).
Conclusion
Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant provides citations to relevant paragraphs of specification for support for amendments in future correspondence.
The following relevant prior art not cited is made of record:
US Publication 20130229289A1, teaching on variable warning signs that vary in pitch, volume, etc. to indicate distance to a hazardous site
US Publication 20210158966A1, teaching on providing warnings to users pertaining to infectious outbreaks based on user proximity to the outbreak
US Publication 20220178712A1, teaching on safe zones and routes planning with respect to avoiding a known infectious area/person(s)
US Publication 20220178712, teaching on recommending a safe path to navigate an environment to minimize infection risk of an individual
US Publication 20150100330A1, teaching on identifying infectious and hazardous sites, detecting disease outbreaks, and notifying users of their proximity to a disease outbreak site
US Patent 11342051B1, teaching infectious disease monitoring using location information, including determining overlapping travel paths with an infected individual
US Publication 20170350702A1, teaching on a wearable device for tracking real-time ambient health conditions and method for destination selection based on real-time ambient health conditions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3370. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:00pm EST and generally schedules interviews in the timeframe of 2:00-5:00pm 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, Fonya Long, can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682