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 .
Applicant’s submission dated 02/15/2024 has been received and made of record.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in Application 18/443,260.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canning (US 2011/0131283 A1) in view of Sastry (US 2008/0082607 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Canning discloses A computer-implemented method for managing posts in a conversation platform (Canning: Abstract: “A system and corresponding methods for recommending a discussion group as an appropriate place to post a message are provided”), comprising:
receiving a post, (Canning: Figure 4 and Paragraph [0064], “At step 406, the user provides the subject of the message in a subject box and the text of the message in a text box, which are provided on the displayed page. The user then activates a `continue` or `submit` button provided on the page, causing client computer 102 to transmit the entered text to posting component 206”; the “software facility 202” of Canning corresponds to the ICMBot of the instant invention);
analyzing content of the post (Canning: Figure 4 and Paragraph [0065], “At step 408, posting component 206 searches the existing posts in the discussion groups using the text contained in the user-provided message subject and/or message body and any other relevant search parameters”);
determining one or more channels related to the content of the post (Canning: Figure 4 and Paragraph [0065], “At step 408, posting component 206 searches the existing posts in the discussion groups using the text contained in the user-provided message subject and/or message body and any other relevant search parameters”);
finding a best-fit conversation channel from the determined one or more channels (Canning: Figure 4 and Paragraph [0057], “At step 314, posting component 206 analyzes the search result set to identify a discussion group to recommend to the user. In one embodiment, posting component 206 utilizes recommendation component 210 to determine a number of relevant discussion groups. The number may have been previously specified by, for example, a system administrator. Recommendation component 210 analyzes the search result set and returns the number of relevant discussion groups, including the most relevant discussion group designated as the recommended discussion group. For example, recommendation component 210 organizes the posts in the search result set into their constituent discussion groups and counts hits per discussion group to identify the number of discussion groups having the highest count of hits. In one embodiment, recommendation component 210 designates the discussion group having the highest number of hits as the recommended discussion group”; Step 414 corresponds to step 314);
and routing the post from the first conversational channel into the best-fit conversational channel when the first conversation channel is not the best-fit conversational channel (Canning: Figure 4 and Paragraph [0059], “In an alternative embodiment, posting component 206 automatically posts the user's message in the recommended discussion group”).
Canning does not explicitly disclose retaining the post in the best-fit conversational channel when the first conversational channel is the best-fit conversational channel.
However, Sastry discloses this feature (Sastry: Paragraph [0012], “responsive to a policy setting indicated by a moderator of a forum, the disclosed system can for example suggest which sub-threads represent conversations bordering on "irrelevant", and allow the moderator to intervene by deleting the sub-threads or moving them into their own separate topics. Such moving or deleting may alternatively be provided such that it is performed automatically, without moderator involvement”; that is, posts that are not considered off-topic (or better placed in a different thread) are kept in the initial conversational channel).
Canning and Sastry are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to messaging applications. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Sastry’s initial conversation channel into the system of Canning so that posts could be immediately posted and moderated later/periodically, allowing for faster throughput in certain situations.
Canning-Sastry teaches 2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the receiving the post comprises receiving the post or a plurality of new posts into the ICMBot screener at a predetermined interval (Canning: Paragraph [0032], “facility 202 periodically, for example, when a user requests to post a message, performs a search of the posts in the discussion groups and uses the information generated by the search to provide enhanced community services”; Sastry: Figure 5 and Paragraph [0044] describe a batch processing approach for determining off-topic subthreads; while the frequency of process runs is not explicitly disclosed, it can be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to allow for predetermined intervals).
Canning-Sastry teaches 3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising determining an intent of the post by analyzing keywords and information provided in the post to determine which category or channel the post belongs (Canning: Figure 4 and Paragraph [0073], “facility 202 can analyze attributes associated with the post, such as by way of example and not limitation, the subject of the post, the message body of the post, an indication of whether the post is a comment, response, or a question, the thread, the discussion group, etc., to generate or extract words or phrases that describe or indicate the topic of the post”; Sastry: Claim 1, “automatically generating system-generated tags, wherein said system-generated tags are determined by analyzing the contents of all posts in a sub-thread of said discussion thread… determining, responsive to said user-defined tags, said system-generated tags, and said moderator-promoted tags, whether said sub-thread is off-topic with respect to said discussion thread”).
Canning-Sastry teaches 4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising calculating an on-topic score according matched keywords between metadata of each conversational channel and the post (Canning: Figure 4 and Paragraph [0037], “recommendation component 210 analyzes the result set and counts the number of hits per discussion group. Recommendation component 210 identifies the discussion group having the most hits as a recommended discussion group into which to post the message”; Sastry: Paragraph [0055], “The contents of column 100 identifies the post represented by the entry, the contents of the column 102 shows the ranked set of tags associated with the post, and the contents of the column 104 shows the conjunctiveness score determined for that post”).
Canning-Sastry teaches 5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising routing, when the post is determined to be off-topic, the post to a mapped conversation channel having a highest on-topic score (Canning: Figure 4, Paragraph [0037], “recommendation component 210 analyzes the result set and counts the number of hits per discussion group. Recommendation component 210 identifies the discussion group having the most hits as a recommended discussion group into which to post the message”, and Paragraph [0059], “In an alternative embodiment, posting component 206 automatically posts the user's message in the recommended discussion group”).
Canning-Sastry teaches 6. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, further comprising notifying a user of the post being routed to the mapped conversation channel (Canning: Figure 4 and Paragraph [0058], “At step 316, posting component 206 transmits a page displaying the recommended discussion group and a list of candidate discussion groups to client computer 102, causing client computer 102 to display the page. The candidate discussion groups are composed of the number of discussion groups returned by recommendation component 210. The recommended discussion group and the list of candidate discussion groups may be displayed through a dropdown menu on the page, where the recommended discussion group appears as the default in the dropdown”; Sastry: Paragraph [0012], “users can be automatically notified when a sub-thread has been removed from a discussion thread and placed under a separate topic”).
Canning-Sastry teaches 10/16. The computer implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving an input from administrators and other users to configure and adjust settings and criteria of the ICMBot server (Canning: Figure 4 and Paragraph [0057], “At step 314, posting component 206 analyzes the search result set to identify a discussion group to recommend to the user. In one embodiment, posting component 206 utilizes recommendation component 210 to determine a number of relevant discussion groups. The number may have been previously specified by, for example, a system administrator”; Sastry: Claim 1, “determining, responsive to said user-defined tags, said system-generated tags, and said moderator-promoted tags, whether said sub-thread is off-topic with respect to said discussion thread”).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canning and Sastry as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Knight (US 7159011 B1).
Canning-Sastry teaches 7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising adjusting settings and criteria of the ICMBot server according to (Canning: Paragraph [0037], “recommendation component 210 analyzes the result set and counts the number of hits per discussion group. Recommendation component 210 identifies the discussion group having the most hits as a recommended discussion group into which to post the message”, the number of hits is an on-topic value).
Canning does not explicitly disclose the adjusting is according to feedback of users.
However, Knight discloses this feature (Knight: Column 10 Lines 50-58 “search robots 231 and 232 also have the capacity to be programmed with feedback information gleaned concerning the interests of users of the online service as they post entries through posting logic 235”).
Canning-Sastry and Knight are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to messaging systems. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Knight’s buffer reading, machine learning, and feedback into the system of Canning-Sastry to allow for improved classification of messages.
Canning-Sastry teaches 8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising learning categories of existing and newly created channels from posted content, purpose descriptions of conversational channels (Canning: Paragraph [0041], “Facility 202 can categorize discussion groups as being overly broad by searching for the presence of various words or phrases, which are generally understood as having a broad meaning, in the title or subject of the discussion group.”; Sastry: Paragraph [0037], “In one embodiment, user-defined tags can be defined by a user that initiates a discussion thread, and is accordingly the author of the topic post for that discussion thread”),
Canning does not explicitly disclose the adjusting is according to reactions of other users.
However, Knight discloses this feature (Knight: Column 10 Lines 50-58 “search robots 231 and 232 also have the capacity to be programmed with feedback information gleaned concerning the interests of users of the online service as they post entries through posting logic 235”).
Canning-Sastry and Knight are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to messaging systems. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Knight’s buffer reading, machine learning, and feedback into the system of Canning-Sastry to allow for improved classification of messages.
Canning-Sastry teaches 9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising screening content (Canning: Paragraph [0035], “Search engine 208 searches the posts existing in the discussion groups for certain words or phrases”, that is, screening content of a plurality of conversational channels)
Canning does not explicitly disclose the adjusting is according to other users’ reactions.
However, Knight discloses this feature (Knight: Column 10 Lines 50-58 “search robots 231 and 232 also have the capacity to be programmed with feedback information gleaned concerning the interests of users of the online service as they post entries through posting logic 235”).
Canning and Knight-Sastry are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to messaging systems. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Knight’s buffer reading, machine learning, and feedback into the system of Canning-Sastry to allow for improved classification of messages.
Claim(s) 11-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canning (US 2011/0131283 A1) in view of Knight (US 7159011 B1).
Regarding claim 11, Canning discloses A computer-implemented method for managing posts in a conversation platform (Canning: Abstract: “A system and corresponding methods for recommending a discussion group as an appropriate place to post a message are provided”), comprising:
receiving, into an intelligent channel moderation bot (ICMBot) screener, a post content (Canning: Figure 4 and Paragraph [0064], “At step 406, the user provides the subject of the message in a subject box and the text of the message in a text box, which are provided on the displayed page. The user then activates a `continue` or `submit` button provided on the page, causing client computer 102 to transmit the entered text to posting component 206”; the “software facility 202” of Canning corresponds to the ICMBot of the instant invention);
analyzing a content of the post (Canning: Figure 4 and Paragraph [0065], “At step 408, posting component 206 searches the existing posts in the discussion groups using the text contained in the user-provided message subject and/or message body and any other relevant search parameters”);
determining one or more channels related to the content of the post (Canning: Figure 4 and Paragraph [0065], “At step 408, posting component 206 searches the existing posts in the discussion groups using the text contained in the user-provided message subject and/or message body and any other relevant search parameters”);
finding a best-fit conversation channel from the determined one or more channels (Canning: Figure 4 and Paragraph [0057], “At step 314, posting component 206 analyzes the search result set to identify a discussion group to recommend to the user. In one embodiment, posting component 206 utilizes recommendation component 210 to determine a number of relevant discussion groups. The number may have been previously specified by, for example, a system administrator. Recommendation component 210 analyzes the search result set and returns the number of relevant discussion groups, including the most relevant discussion group designated as the recommended discussion group. For example, recommendation component 210 organizes the posts in the search result set into their constituent discussion groups and counts hits per discussion group to identify the number of discussion groups having the highest count of hits. In one embodiment, recommendation component 210 designates the discussion group having the highest number of hits as the recommended discussion group”; Step 414 corresponds to step 314);
and recommending the best-fit conversation channel to a user prior to the user posting the post into the conversation platform (Canning: Figure 4 and Paragraph [0058], “At step 316, posting component 206 transmits a page displaying the recommended discussion group and a list of candidate discussion groups to client computer 102, causing client computer 102 to display the page. The candidate discussion groups are composed of the number of discussion groups returned by recommendation component 210. The recommended discussion group and the list of candidate discussion groups may be displayed through a dropdown menu on the page, where the recommended discussion group appears as the default in the dropdown”; Step 416 corresponds to step 316).
Canning does not explicitly disclose that data is received from an input buffer manager.
However, Knight discloses such a feature (Knight: Figure 5, “Message Traffic Monitor”, and Column 27 Lines 15-20, “message traffic monitor routine 538 is depicted as logically placed as an intermediary data buffer between user query interface 530, user posting interface 535, and database management system 540, so that tabulations of message keywords can be updated quickly and kept current”).
Canning and Knight are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to messaging systems. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Knight’s buffer reading, machine learning, and feedback into the system of Canning to allow for improved classification of messages.
Canning-Knight teaches 12. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising analyzing keywords and information provided in the post to determine an intent of the post (Canning: Paragraph [0032], “a search for a matching or a related post (e.g., a similar post) returns a number of attributes related to the post”, and [0035], “Search engine 208 searches the posts existing in the discussion groups for certain words or phrases. In one embodiment, search engine 208 is implemented as a text search engine. For example, search engine 208 receives a subject of a post and/or the text of the message as input. Search engine 208 generates keywords from the received input (e.g., by eliminating the articles and other commonly used words) and performs a text search of the posts in the discussion groups for the keywords as search terms and returns a result set (e.g., a list of posts that contain at least one keyword and their attributes, including a number of hits generated during the search). It will be appreciated that search engine 208 may be implemented using other searching methods and technologies”).
Canning-Knight teaches 13. The computer-implemented method of claim 12, further comprising calculating an on-topic score according matched keywords between metadata of each conversational channel and the post (Canning: Paragraph [0036], “Recommendation component 210 may also rank the relevant threads based on the count of the number of hits per thread, or a variation thereof.”; the extracted corpus of keywords is considered metadata).
Canning-Knight teaches 14. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising learning categories of existing and newly created channels from posted content, purpose descriptions of conversational channels, and reaction of other users (Canning: Paragraph [0041], “Facility 202 can categorize discussion groups as being overly broad by searching for the presence of various words or phrases, which are generally understood as having a broad meaning, in the title or subject of the discussion group.”; Knight: Column 10 Lines 50-58 “search robots 231 and 232 also have the capacity to be programmed with feedback information gleaned concerning the interests of users of the online service as they post entries through posting logic 235”).
Canning-Knight teaches 15. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising screening content and other users' reactions in multiple ones of a plurality of conversational channels (Canning: Paragraph [0035], “Search engine 208 searches the posts existing in the discussion groups for certain words or phrases”, that is, screening content of a plurality of conversational channels; Knight: Column 10 Lines 50-58 “search robots 231 and 232 also have the capacity to be programmed with feedback information gleaned concerning the interests of users of the online service as they post entries through posting logic 235”).
Canning-Knight teaches 17. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, further comprising adjusting settings and criteria of the ICMBot screener according to feedback from other users and values of off-topic and/or on-topic posts (Canning: Paragraph [0037], “recommendation component 210 analyzes the result set and counts the number of hits per discussion group. Recommendation component 210 identifies the discussion group having the most hits as a recommended discussion group into which to post the message”, the number of hits is an on-topic value; Knight: Column 10 Lines 50-58 “search robots 231 and 232 also have the capacity to be programmed with feedback information gleaned concerning the interests of users of the online service as they post entries through posting logic 235”).
Regarding claim 18, Canning discloses A system (Canning: Claim 46, “A computing device”) comprising:
a processor (Canning: Claim 46, “a processor that executes the computer-executable instructions stored in the memory”);
a data bus coupled to the processor (Canning: Claim 46, “a processor that executes the computer-executable instructions stored in the memory”; a data bus is understood to be connection between the processor and the memory);
a memory coupled to the data bus (Canning: Claim 46, “a processor that executes the computer-executable instructions stored in the memory”);
and a computer-usable medium embodying a computer program code, the computer program code comprising instructions executable by the processor (Canning: Claim 46, “a memory storing computer-executable instructions”) and configured to:
receive a post that is either (1) an already-posted post, posted to a first conversational channel, or (2) a pre-posted post, based on content received (Canning: Figure 4 and Paragraph [0064], “At step 406, the user provides the subject of the message in a subject box and the text of the message in a text box, which are provided on the displayed page. The user then activates a `continue` or `submit` button provided on the page, causing client computer 102 to transmit the entered text to posting component 206”; the “software facility 202” of Canning corresponds to the ICMBot of the instant invention);
analyze content of the post (Canning: Figure 4 and Paragraph [0065], “At step 408, posting component 206 searches the existing posts in the discussion groups using the text contained in the user-provided message subject and/or message body and any other relevant search parameters”);
determine one or more channels related to the content of the post (Canning: Figure 4 and Paragraph [0065], “At step 408, posting component 206 searches the existing posts in the discussion groups using the text contained in the user-provided message subject and/or message body and any other relevant search parameters”);
find a best-fit conversation channel from the determined one or more channels (Canning: Figure 4 and Paragraph [0057], “At step 314, posting component 206 analyzes the search result set to identify a discussion group to recommend to the user. In one embodiment, posting component 206 utilizes recommendation component 210 to determine a number of relevant discussion groups. The number may have been previously specified by, for example, a system administrator. Recommendation component 210 analyzes the search result set and returns the number of relevant discussion groups, including the most relevant discussion group designated as the recommended discussion group. For example, recommendation component 210 organizes the posts in the search result set into their constituent discussion groups and counts hits per discussion group to identify the number of discussion groups having the highest count of hits. In one embodiment, recommendation component 210 designates the discussion group having the highest number of hits as the recommended discussion group”; Step 414 corresponds to step 314);
retain the already-posted post in the best-fit conversational channel when the first conversational channel is the best-fit conversational channel (listed in the alternative);
route the already-posted post from the first conversational channel into the best-fit conversational channel when the first conversation channel is not the best-fit conversational channel (listed in the alternative);
and recommend the best-fit conversation channel to a user prior to the user posting the pre-posted post into a conversation platform (Canning: Figure 4 and Paragraph [0058], “At step 316, posting component 206 transmits a page displaying the recommended discussion group and a list of candidate discussion groups to client computer 102, causing client computer 102 to display the page. The candidate discussion groups are composed of the number of discussion groups returned by recommendation component 210. The recommended discussion group and the list of candidate discussion groups may be displayed through a dropdown menu on the page, where the recommended discussion group appears as the default in the dropdown”; Step 416 corresponds to step 316).
Canning does not explicitly disclose that data is received from an input buffer manager.
However, Knight discloses such a feature (Knight: Figure 5, “Message Traffic Monitor”, and Column 27 Lines 15-20, “message traffic monitor routine 538 is depicted as logically placed as an intermediary data buffer between user query interface 530, user posting interface 535, and database management system 540, so that tabulations of message keywords can be updated quickly and kept current”).
Canning and Knight are analogous art in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention as all are drawn to messaging systems. 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; that is, it would have been obvious to incorporate Knight’s buffer reading, machine learning, and feedback into the system of Canning to allow for improved classification of messages.
Canning-Knight teaches 19. The system of claim 18, wherein the instructions are further configured to analyze keywords and information provided in the post to determine an intent of the post (Canning: Paragraph [0032], “a search for a matching or a related post (e.g., a similar post) returns a number of attributes related to the post”, and [0035], “Search engine 208 searches the posts existing in the discussion groups for certain words or phrases. In one embodiment, search engine 208 is implemented as a text search engine. For example, search engine 208 receives a subject of a post and/or the text of the message as input. Search engine 208 generates keywords from the received input (e.g., by eliminating the articles and other commonly used words) and performs a text search of the posts in the discussion groups for the keywords as search terms and returns a result set (e.g., a list of posts that contain at least one keyword and their attributes, including a number of hits generated during the search). It will be appreciated that search engine 208 may be implemented using other searching methods and technologies”).
Canning-Knight teaches 20. The system of claim 19, wherein the instructions are further configured to calculate an on-topic score according matched keywords between metadata of each conversational channel and the post (Canning: Paragraph [0036], “Recommendation component 210 may also rank the relevant threads based on the count of the number of hits per thread, or a variation thereof.”; the extracted corpus of keywords is considered metadata).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ganesh (US 2021/0390144 A1) describes a learning chatbot that accepts feedback regarding on-topic and off-topic messages from chat participants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMAD HUSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0900-1700 ET.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. 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.
/IMAD HUSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453