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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 8-14 are directed to a system, and claims 15-20 are directed to an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite matching users and opening a communication channel after receiving a confirm match, constituting an abstract idea based on “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” related to managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals including social activities. Claim 1 recites abstract limitations including “A method comprising receiving first user data comprising …associated with a first user; receiving second user data comprising … associated with a second user: determining a baseline user rating for the second user using the first user data and the second user data; generating a match between the first user and the second user; receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match; coordinating displaying, …comprising at least a portion of the second user data; receiving a confirm match signal from the first user …; and in response to receiving the confirm match signal, opening a communication..” Claim 8 recites the abstract limitations including “that, in response to execution …, … perform operations comprising: receiving first user data … associated with a first user; receiving second user data … associated with a second user; determining a baseline user rating for the second user using the first user data and the second user data; generating a match between the first user and the second user; receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match;… receiving a confirm match signal from the first user…; and in response to receiving the confirm match signal, opening a communication ....” Claim 15 recites abstract limitations including “receiving first user data comprising …associated with a first user; receiving second user data comprising …associated with a second user: determining a baseline user rating for the second user using the first user data and the second user data; generating a match between the first user and the second user; receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match; …; receiving a confirm match signal from the first user …; and in response to receiving the confirm match signal, opening a communication …” These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the language of “device,” and for claims 8 and 15 “processor”, covers an abstract idea but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “device,” and for claims 8 and 15 “processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being interpreted as an abstract idea. For example, with the exception of the “using the at least one processor” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass an abstract idea directed to a “Mental Process” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”
Dependent claims 2, 9, 16, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 3-7, 10-14, 17-20, will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is a method comprising “metadata tags, a first device to the first user, a match page interface, first device, opening a communication channel between the first device and a second device.” Claim 8 is a system that recites limitations performed “a processor; and a tangible, non-transitory memory configured to communicate with the processor, the tangible, non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor, metadata tags, coordinating displaying, on a first device to the first user, a match page interface comprising at least a portion of the second user data, the first device, communication channel between the first device and a second device.” Claim 15 further recites the additional elements of “an article of manufacture including a non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by a computer based system, cause the computer based system, metadata tags, coordinating displaying, on a first device to the first user, a match page interface comprising at least a portion of the second user data, first device, communication channel between the first device and a second device.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea 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., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2, 9, 16, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, further defines the additional element of “metadata tags.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependents claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20, introduces further features of the “match page interface.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea 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., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Claim 1 is a method comprising “metadata tags, a first device to the first user, a match page interface, first device, opening a communication channel between the first device and a second device.” Claim 8 is a system that recites limitations performed “a processor; and a tangible, non-transitory memory configured to communicate with the processor, the tangible, non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor, metadata tags, coordinating displaying, on a first device to the first user, a match page interface comprising at least a portion of the second user data, the first device, communication channel between the first device and a second device.” Claim 15 further recites the additional elements of “an article of manufacture including a non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by a computer based system, cause the computer based system, metadata tags, coordinating displaying, on a first device to the first user, a match page interface comprising at least a portion of the second user data, first device, communication channel between the first device and a second device.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea 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., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2, 9, 16, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, further defines the additional element of “metadata tags.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20, introduces further features of the “match page interface.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea 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., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 20120190386 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (US 20140032363 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson teaches receiving first user data comprising metadata tags associated with a first user (¶ 110, 318, 343, 572, 804, disclose metadata matching for a first user, ¶ 940, discloses creating metadata tags);
receiving second user data comprising metadata tags associated with a second user (¶ 347, 422, 812, discloses product (products associated with the second user) metadata tags),
determining a baseline user rating for the second user using the first user data and the second user data (¶ 439, 647, assigns a user score in view of the vendor (second user), ¶ 1549-1550, discloses a user Web Cred score in view of an advertiser (second user));
generating a match between the first user and the second user (¶ 13, discloses matching profiles, ¶ 71, discloses matching data/metadata. ¶ 323-325, 963, discloses matching user profiles to ad content, ¶ 572, 1436, discloses the matching first and second users. ¶ 875);
coordinating displaying, on a first device to the first user, a match page interface comprising at least a portion of the second user data (¶ 110, 308, 455, 691, discloses matching offers and displaying them on the page. ¶ 875);
receiving a confirm match signal from the first user on the first device (¶ 409, discloses that a user can select the communication path, ¶ 455, 691, discloses matching offers and displaying them on the page. ¶ 540, discloses user’s selection matching.); and
in response to receiving the confirm match signal, opening a communication channel between the first device and a second device (¶ 1379, discloses direct contact between the first and second user. ¶ 1262, 1284, disclose the communication channels. ¶ 1371, discloses a pop up communication between the users. ¶ 1731).
Anderson does not specifically teach receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match.
However, Zhao teaches receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match (¶ 32, discloses skipping a buyer match. ¶ 30, discloses negotiating potential matches. ¶ 39, discloses a skip option to view a similar product from a different seller).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Anderson to include/perform receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match, as taught/suggested by Zhao. This known technique is applicable to the system of Anderson as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to completing transactions with alternative forms of identification that don’t require a financial account number. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Anderson would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Anderson to the teachings of Zhao would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such requesting a new match features into similar systems. Further, applying receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user the ability to pick a new item, ad, potential seller.
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, the combination of Anderson and Zhao teach the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15, Anderson does not specifically teach wherein the search query comprises a refuse match signal from a previous match.
However, Zhao teaches wherein the search query comprises a refuse match signal from a previous match (¶ 32, discloses skipping a buyer match. ¶ 30, discloses negotiating potential matches. ¶ 39, discloses a skip option to view a similar product from a different seller).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Anderson to include/perform wherein the search query comprises a refuse match signal from a previous match, as taught/suggested by Zhao. This known technique is applicable to the system of Anderson as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to matching users and providers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Anderson would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Anderson to the teachings of Zhao would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such refusal features into similar systems. Further, applying wherein the search query comprises a refuse match signal from a previous match would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user the ability to pick a new item, ad, potential seller.
Regarding claims 3, 10, 17, Anderson teaches before receiving the search query, receiving one or more search query parameters comprising metadata tags describing a desired match (¶ 52, 76, discloses profile matches including user desires. ¶ 619, 963, 1452, 1498, discloses user desires prior to matching).
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19, Anderson teaches wherein the match page interface comprises a map user interface comprising a respective selectable icon for each respective match between the first user and another user, each respective match meeting requirements in the search query (¶ 426, 1530, 1580-1581, discloses a map interface with user profile match data).
Regarding claims 7, 14, Anderson teaches wherein the metadata tags associated with the first user comprise a type tag, an interest tag, a location tag, a closing datum, a sales datum, a buyer feedback tag, or a seller feedback tag (¶ 257, 1061, 1717, 1762, 1943-1947, discloses a tag that is a location stamp. ¶ 1077, discloses a location profile. ¶ 914, 1533, discloses types of digital content and keyword tags ).
Regarding claim 8, Anderson teaches a processor; and a tangible, non-transitory memory configured to communicate with the processor, the tangible, non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising (¶ 1237-1238, 1816, 1922, Fig. 18, 26);
receiving first user data comprising metadata tags associated with a first user (¶ 110, 318, 343, 572, 804, disclose metadata matching for a first user, ¶ 940, discloses creating metadata tags);
receiving second user data comprising metadata tags associated with a second user (¶ 347, 422, 812, discloses product (products associated with the second user) metadata tags),
determining a baseline user rating for the second user using the first user data and the second user data (¶ 439, 647, assigns a user score in view of the vendor (second user), ¶ 1549-1550, discloses a user Web Cred score in view of an advertiser (second user));
generating a match between the first user and the second user (¶ 13, discloses matching profiles, ¶ 71, discloses matching data/metadata. ¶ 323-325, 963, discloses matching user profiles to ad content, ¶ 572, 1436, discloses the matching first and second users. ¶ 875);
coordinating displaying, on a first device to the first user, a match page interface comprising at least a portion of the second user data (¶ 110, 308, 455, 691, discloses matching offers and displaying them on the page. ¶ 875);
receiving a confirm match signal from the first user on the first device (¶ 409, discloses that a user can select the communication path, ¶ 455, 691, discloses matching offers and displaying them on the page. ¶ 540, discloses user’s selection matching.); and
in response to receiving the confirm match signal, opening a communication channel between the first device and a second device (¶ 1379, discloses direct contact between the first and second user. ¶ 1262, 1284, disclose the communication channels. ¶ 1371, discloses a pop up communication between the users. ¶ 1731).
Anderson does not specifically teach receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match.
However, Zhao teaches receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match (¶ 32, discloses skipping a buyer match. ¶ 30, discloses negotiating potential matches. ¶ 39, discloses a skip option to view a similar product from a different seller).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Anderson to include/perform receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match, as taught/suggested by Zhao. This known technique is applicable to the system of Anderson as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to completing transactions with alternative forms of identification that don’t require a financial account number. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Anderson would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Anderson to the teachings of Zhao would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such requesting a new match features into similar systems. Further, applying receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user the ability to pick a new item, ad, potential seller.
Regarding claim 15, Anderson teaches an article of manufacture including a non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by a computer based system, cause the computer based system to perform operations comprising (¶ 1237-1238, 1816, 1922, Fig. 18, 26);
receiving first user data comprising metadata tags associated with a first user (¶ 110, 318, 343, 572, 804, disclose metadata matching for a first user, ¶ 940, discloses creating metadata tags);
receiving second user data comprising metadata tags associated with a second user (¶ 347, 422, 812, discloses product (products associated with the second user) metadata tags),
determining a baseline user rating for the second user using the first user data and the second user data (¶ 439, 647, assigns a user score in view of the vendor (second user), ¶ 1549-1550, discloses a user Web Cred score in view of an advertiser (second user));
generating a match between the first user and the second user (¶ 13, discloses matching profiles, ¶ 71, discloses matching data/metadata. ¶ 323-325, 963, discloses matching user profiles to ad content, ¶ 572, 1436, discloses the matching first and second users. ¶ 875);
coordinating displaying, on a first device to the first user, a match page interface comprising at least a portion of the second user data (¶ 110, 308, 455, 691, discloses matching offers and displaying them on the page. ¶ 875);
receiving a confirm match signal from the first user on the first device (¶ 409, discloses that a user can select the communication path, ¶ 455, 691, discloses matching offers and displaying them on the page. ¶ 540, discloses user’s selection matching.); and
in response to receiving the confirm match signal, opening a communication channel between the first device and a second device (¶ 1379, discloses direct contact between the first and second user. ¶ 1262, 1284, disclose the communication channels. ¶ 1371, discloses a pop up communication between the users. ¶ 1731).
Anderson does not specifically teach receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match.
However, Zhao teaches receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match (¶ 32, discloses skipping a buyer match. ¶ 30, discloses negotiating potential matches. ¶ 39, discloses a skip option to view a similar product from a different seller).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Anderson to include/perform receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match, as taught/suggested by Zhao. This known technique is applicable to the system of Anderson as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to completing transactions with alternative forms of identification that don’t require a financial account number. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Anderson would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Anderson to the teachings of Zhao would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such requesting a new match features into similar systems. Further, applying receiving, from the first user, a search query requesting a new match would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user the ability to pick a new item, ad, potential seller.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 20120190386 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (US 20140032363 A1) in further view of Natarajan et al. (US 20190327330 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, the combination of Anderson and Zhao teach the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15, Anderson teaches the associations based on the metadata tags associated with the first user and the metadata tags associated with the second user (¶ 110, 318, 343, 572, 804, disclose metadata matching for a first user, ¶ 940, discloses creating metadata tags, ¶ 347, 422, 812, discloses product (products associated with the second user) metadata tags).
The combination does not specifically teach a social graph.
However, Natarajan teaches wherein determining the baseline user rating comprises generating a social graph comprising associations between the first user and the second user (¶ 64, 71, discloses a baseline profile rating, ¶ 65, 72, 75, 77, 90, discloses a social graph with user associations.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Anderson to include/perform wherein determining the baseline user rating comprises generating a social graph comprising associations between the first user and the second user, as taught/suggested by Natarajan. This known technique is applicable to the system of Anderson as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to creating and adjusting user profiles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Anderson would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Anderson to the teachings of Natarajan would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such social graph features into similar systems. Further, applying wherein determining the baseline user rating comprises generating a social graph comprising associations between the first user and the second user would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user the ability to have a visual of the link between the various users.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 20120190386 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (US 20140032363 A1) in further view of Ivmark et al. (US 20140250419 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20, the combination of Anderson and Zhao teach the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15, Anderson teaches display a respective profile picture for each respective match between the first user and another user (¶ 110, 318, 343, 572, 804, disclose metadata matching for a first user, ¶ 940, discloses creating metadata tags, ¶ 347, 422, 812, discloses product (products associated with the second user) metadata tags).
The combination does not specifically teach wherein the match page interface comprises a profile drawer in a collapsed state, the profile drawer configured to expand.
However, Ivmark teaches wherein the match page interface comprises a profile drawer in a collapsed state, the profile drawer configured to expand (Fig. 6A-6B, ¶ 76, discloses the data drawer in a collapsed state, ¶ 80-82, discloses that a master profile drawer has been expanded.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Anderson to include/perform w wherein the match page interface comprises a profile drawer in a collapsed state, the profile drawer configured to expand, as taught/suggested by Ivmark. This known technique is applicable to the system of Anderson as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to creating and adjusting user profiles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Anderson would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Anderson to the teachings of Ivmark would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such collapsed state drawer features into similar systems. Further, applying wherein the match page interface comprises a profile drawer in a collapsed state, the profile drawer configured to expand would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user the ability to have a visual of the link between the various data points.
Other pertinent prior art includes Woddi et al. (US 20170039578 A1) which discloses optimizing the order of search result. Lenahan et al. (US 20140100985 A1) which discloses scanning social networking sites to find keywords indicative of a person's desire or need to sell or buy a product and connect potential sellers and buyers. Thomas (US 20120016765 A1) which discloses providing an automated platform to enable intellectual property transactions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE H AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7am-2pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270 5389. 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.
JAMIE H. AUSTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JAMIE H AUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625