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 Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits.
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 U.S.C. § 101, because they recite non-patentable subject matter under MPEP § 2106, e.g., the 2019 PEG, October update. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea, etc.) without practical application or significantly more.
More particularly, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Broad categories of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas. See, generally Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. __ (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294, 1297-98 (2012)); Federal Register notice titled 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (79 FR 74618), which is found at: http:// www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf; 2015 Update to the Interim Guidance; the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019; and associated Office memoranda.
Under MPEP § 2106, Step 2a-prong 1, Claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception(s), including a method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principle). More particularly, the entirety of the method steps is directed towards executing a card transaction across a payment network and through an external gateway offering its own funding source, and executing a card transaction featuring a transaction specific interest or rewards rate (e.g., tiered rate). These are long-standing commercial practices previously performed by consumers (e.g., platform consumers such as SQUARE, PAYPAL, ZELLE, etc.) manually and via generic computing, which sit external to the issuer/payment network (e.g., VISA, MASTERCARD, etc.). Such, platforms have long provided value-addedness/fraud detection services, in deciding whether to allow a transaction to go through. Such platforms have long charged the merchant variable fees depending upon transaction details. As such, the inventions include an abstract idea(s) under § 2106, and Alice Corporation.
Under step 2a-prong 2, the claims fail to recite a practical application of the exception, because the extraneous limitations (e.g., the structure—a card processing system, external gateway, and determining dynamic processing parameters, including predetermined ranges (e.g., tiers)) merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g), generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or generally instruct an artisan to apply it (the method) across generic computing technology. A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222; BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014). That is to say, the claims are not directed to a new software or computer, but rather employs pre-existing software to do what’s been previously done. “[I]t is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). More particularly, the claims fail to recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology (under MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the use of a particular machine (under § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article (§ 2106.05(c)), or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (§ 2106.05(e)).
Under part 2b, the additional elements offered by the dependent claims either further delineate the abstract idea, add further abstract idea(s), adds insignificant extra-solution activity, or further instruct the artisan to apply it (the abstract idea(s)) across generic computing technology. Generating dynamic processing parameters fail to offer significantly more because it was known in the art at the time of filing (See, e.g., chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://evopayments.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/EVO-Gateway-2-AUTH-PURCHASE-VERIFY-Hosted-Payment-Page-6.0.pdf) The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because no one claim effects an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Under Alice, merely applying or executing the abstract idea on one or more generic computer system (e.g., a computer system comprising a generic database; a generic element (NIC) for providing website access, etc.; a generic element for receiving user input; and a generic display on the computer, in any of their forms) to carry out the abstract idea more efficiently fails to cure patent ineligibility. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (claims reciting a “scanner” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Serv. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea).
Courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, MPEP 2106.05(d), wherein the italicized tasks are particularly germane to the instant invention.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2015/0277964 to Atkins, in view of US 2020/0065847 to Harrison et al., and further in view of US 2021/0224764 to Krajicek et al.
With respect to Claims 1, 11, and 17, Atkins teaches a system comprising a processor and non-transitory computer readable medium (FIGS.1-4) configured to execute a computer-implemented method (FIG. 1, 7) comprising: receiving, by one or more servers of a card processing system (FIG. 2, 3, 6) comprising a payment card account funded via an external funding source ([0027], credit card?, debit card?;[0031]), a transaction authorization request routed to the card processing system from a payment network ([0038];[0041]) in connection with an electronic card transaction; sending, by the one or more servers of the card processing system to an external gateway (sub-processing system 29; [0038], sub-processing system 29 may be associated with a merchant bank which could be a funding source) that services the external funding source ([0033];[0038]) where the external gateway is a third-party funding source distinct from the issuer of the payment card account (FIG. 1) and authorizes funding of the card transaction (FIG. 1; [0038], by sub-processing system 29 authenticating biometric information it authorizes the card transaction), a funding request to authorize the transaction authorization request; determining, by the one or more servers of the card processing system in response to an authorization of the funding request from the external gateway, a set of dynamic processing parameters for the electronic card transaction based on characteristics of the electronic card transaction and parameter ranges (“tiers”) corresponding to the payment card account ([0033];[0038];[0075]); and processing, based on the one or more servers of the card processing system (FIG. 2) sending a response ([0016]) indicating the authorization of the funding request to the payment network, the electronic card transaction by funding the electronic card transaction from the external funding source according to the set of dynamic processing parameters ([0073]-[0077]). Atkins fails to specifically teach exact terms, such as “a set of parameters,” and the specified parameters recited (e.g., timestamp, location, interest rate, reward rate, etc.); however, said parameters are obvious to try as they are a part of a limited set of known transaction parameters. See, KSR international Co. v. Teleflex Inc. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Atkins to include the specified verbiage and specific types of parameters.
Atkins fails to expressly teach wherein the card processing system is between the payment network and an external gateway that services the external funding source ([0041];[0054]); selecting, in response to the authorization of the funding request by the third-party funding source, a transaction- specific interest rate or a transaction-specific reward rate ([0065], “In some cases, different rewards rates can be set for different merchant codes”); the parameter ranges indicating a range of values for the transaction- specific interest rate or the transaction-specific reward rate ([0065]); dynamic processing parameters including the transaction-specific interest rate or the transaction-specific reward rate ([0065]). Harrison further discusses the desire to reduce complexity and save time and capital for card issuers. [0008] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Atkins to include the architect recited, and the parameters including an interest or rewards rate as taught by Harrison, in order to reduce complexity for card issuers offering rewards or interest.
Atkins fails to teach a predetermined range of values for the transaction-specific interest rate or reward rate according to the payment account. Krajicek teaches an interest rate plan comprising “a plurality of tiers” for a payment account, wherein the term “tiers” teaches a predetermined range of values (claim 41 therein). Krajicek teaches “a need exists, . . . to permit the processing of a regulatory-compliant interest in which the rate of interest paid to the consumer account holder is conditioned on the account holder's periodic satisfaction of criteria other than just minimum balance.” ([0006-08]) As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Atkins to include predetermined ranges of interest or rewards rates, in order to provide regularity compliant, but conditional interest rates.
With respect to Claims 2, Atkins teaches wherein receiving the transaction authorization request comprises determining, by parsing the transaction authorization request from the payment network, a response time deadline for communicating with the payment network in connection with the transaction authorization request; and sending the funding request comprises generating the funding request including an additional response time deadline comprising a sub-time period of the response time deadline for the external gateway to respond to the funding request ([0073];[0077], fails some teaches a separate determination of which to fail, etc.).
With respect to Claim 3, Atkins teaches generating the funding request in response to receiving the transaction authorization request from the payment network ([0033];[0038]), the response further indicating the additional response time deadline and the characteristics of the electronic card transaction ([0073];[0077]); and receiving the authorization of the funding request from the external gateway within the additional response time deadline, the authorization of the funding request comprising at least one dynamic processing parameter for the electronic card transaction ([0077], those transactions not failed would be received by the processing server).
With respect to Claim 4, Atkins teaches wherein determining the set of dynamic processing parameters comprises determining a transaction-specific interest rate associated with the electronic card transaction. ([0075], determining which transactions to throttle based on certain “types of payment cards,” etc. teaches basing it on an interest rate associated with the transaction)
Atkins fails to specifically teach exact terms, such as “a set of parameters,” and the specified parameters recited (e.g., timestamp, location, interest rate, reward rate, etc.); however, said parameters are obvious to try as they are a part of a limited set of known transaction parameters. See, KSR international Co. v. Teleflex Inc. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Atkins to include the specified verbiage and specific types of parameters.
With respect to Claim 5, Atkins teaches wherein processing the electronic card transaction comprises: generating metadata associated with the electronic card transaction comprising the transaction-specific interest rate; and determining a balance of the payment card account for a batch of transactions comprising the electronic card transaction utilizing the transaction-specific interest rate from the metadata associated with the electronic card transaction. ([0028], a credit card transaction teaches creating metadata associated with the network activity, credit cards have interest rates, and [0028] teaches checking account balances, batching is management or card activity)
Atkins fails to specifically teach exact terms, such as “a set of parameters,” and the specified parameters recited (e.g., timestamp, location, interest rate, reward rate, etc.); however, said parameters are obvious to try as they are a part of a limited set of known transaction parameters. See, KSR international Co. v. Teleflex Inc. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Atkins to include the specified verbiage and specific types of parameters.
With respect to Claim 6, Atkins teaches wherein determining the set of dynamic processing parameters comprises determining a transaction-specific reward rate associated with the electronic card transaction. ([0075], determining which transactions to throttle based on certain “types of payment cards,” etc. teaches basing it on a reward rate associated with the transaction)
Atkins fails to specifically teach exact terms, such as “a set of parameters,” and the specified parameters recited (e.g., timestamp, location, interest rate, reward rate, etc.); however, said parameters are obvious to try as they are a part of a limited set of known transaction parameters. See, KSR international Co. v. Teleflex Inc. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Atkins to include the specified verbiage and specific types of parameters.
With respect to Claim 7, Atkins teaches wherein processing the electronic card transaction comprises: generating metadata associated with the electronic card transaction comprising the transaction-specific reward rate; and determining a reward balance of the payment card account utilizing the transaction-specific reward rate from the metadata associated with the electronic card transaction. ([0028], a credit card transaction teaches creating metadata associated with the network activity, credit cards have rewards rate, and [0028] teaches checking account balances, batching is management or card activity)
Atkins fails to specifically teach exact terms, such as “a set of parameters,” and the specified parameters recited (e.g., timestamp, location, interest rate, reward rate, etc.); however, said parameters are obvious to try as they are a part of a limited set of known transaction parameters. See, KSR international Co. v. Teleflex Inc. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Atkins to include the specified verbiage and specific types of parameters.
With respect to Claim 8, Atkins teaches wherein sending the funding request comprises: determining, utilizing a first subset of servers of the card processing system, that the electronic card transaction passes a fraud check and velocity controls ([0018], “busyness”) based on data associated with the electronic card transaction from the transaction authorization request; and generating, utilizing a second subset of servers of the card processing system in response to the electronic card transaction passing the fraud check and the velocity controls, the funding request in response to determining that the payment card account has available funding for the electronic card transaction. ([0075], queued failing teaches velocity controls, and failing based on types of transactions, etc. teaches throttling based on likely fraudulent transactions).
Atkins fails to specifically teach exact terms, such as “a set of parameters,” and the specified parameters recited (e.g., timestamp, location, interest rate, reward rate, etc.); however, said parameters are obvious to try as they are a part of a limited set of known transaction parameters. See, KSR international Co. v. Teleflex Inc. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Atkins to include the specified verbiage and specific types of parameters.
With respect to Claim 9, Atkins teaches wherein determining the set of dynamic processing parameters comprises determining the set of dynamic processing parameters based on an identifier associated with a recipient system associated with the electronic card transaction, a geographic location associated with a client device initiating the electronic card transaction, or a timestamp of the electronic card transaction. ([0075], failing based on types of merchant teaches throttling based on recipient type, type of transaction teaches timestamp and location).
Atkins fails to specifically teach exact terms, such as “a set of parameters,” and the specified parameters recited (e.g., timestamp, location, interest rate, reward rate, etc.); however, said parameters are obvious to try as they are a part of a limited set of known transaction parameters. See, KSR international Co. v. Teleflex Inc. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Atkins to include the specified verbiage and specific types of parameters.
With respect to Claim 10, Atkins teaches wherein determining the set of dynamic processing parameters comprises: determining a set of default processing parameters associated with the electronic card transaction based on a card program associated with the payment card account; and modifying, in response to the authorization of the funding request from the external gateway, the set of default processing parameters with the set of dynamic processing parameters in metadata associated with the electronic card transaction. (throttling based on type of card teaches determining default processing parameters and card program; [0075], failing a transaction or voiding teaches altering the default execution/valid state)
With respect to Claim 12, Atkins teaches determine, by parsing the transaction authorization request from the payment network, a response time deadline for authorizing the transaction authorization request ([0018];[0070], failure due to timeout); and send the response indicating the authorization of the funding request to the payment network prior to the response time deadline (avoidance).
With respect to Claim 13, Atkins teaches determine an additional response time deadline comprising a sub-time period of the response time deadline according to an estimated amount of time to perform a plurality of computing operations associated with authorizing the electronic card transaction; and sending the funding request with the additional response time deadline to the external gateway to authorize the transaction authorization request. ([0018];[0070];[0075];[0105])
With respect to Claim 14, Atkins teaches determine the set of dynamic processing parameters by determining a transaction-specific interest rate associated with the electronic card transaction ([0075]) based on a message from the external gateway comprising the authorization of the funding request ([0076]).
Atkins fails to specifically teach exact terms, such as “a set of parameters,” and the specified parameters recited (e.g., timestamp, location, interest rate, reward rate, etc.); however, said parameters are obvious to try as they are a part of a limited set of known transaction parameters. See, KSR international Co. v. Teleflex Inc. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Atkins to include the specified verbiage and specific types of parameters.
With respect to Claim 15, Atkins teaches override a set of default processing parameters for the electronic card transaction within metadata associated with the electronic card transaction in response to determining the set of dynamic processing parameters ([0070-77], voiding or failing the transaction based on throttle teaches this); and determine, at one or more servers of the card processing system in connection with processing the electronic card transaction, a balance of the payment card account at a predetermined time based on a batch of transactions (queue failure) comprising the electronic card transaction and metadata for the batch of transactions indicating the set of dynamic processing parameters. ([0027], balance checking)
With respect to Claim 16, Atkins teaches determine the set of dynamic processing parameters by: determining a transaction-specific reward rate associated with the electronic card transaction ([0075], type of card); and modifying metadata associated with the electronic card transaction by replacing a default reward rate associated with the electronic card transaction with the transaction-specific reward rate (voiding or failing would replace the reward rate associated with the transaction); and modify, at one or more servers of the card processing system in connection with processing the electronic card transaction, a reward balance of the payment card account utilizing the transaction-specific reward rate from the metadata associated with the electronic card transaction. (rewards would be restored to previous total where transaction is voided or failed (not just throttled)).
Atkins fails to specifically teach exact terms, such as “a set of parameters,” and the specified parameters recited (e.g., timestamp, location, interest rate, reward rate, etc.); however, said parameters are obvious to try as they are a part of a limited set of known transaction parameters. See, KSR international Co. v. Teleflex Inc. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Atkins to include the specified verbiage and specific types of parameters.
With respect to Claim 18, Atkins teaches determine, by parsing the transaction authorization request from the payment network, a response time deadline for communicating with the payment network in connection with the transaction authorization request ([0070];[0105]); send the funding request to the external gateway with an additional response time deadline comprising a sub-time period of the response time deadline (sub-processing; [0075]); and determine the set of dynamic processing parameters in response to receiving a message comprising the authorization of the funding request from the external gateway and one or more dynamic processing parameters for the electronic card transaction ([0075]).
With respect to Claim 19, Atkins teaches determine the characteristics of the electronic card transaction based on the transaction authorization request ([0075], type of transaction, etc.); access the parameter ranges (“tiers”) corresponding to the payment card account and a stored repayment history ([0066], historical trends) of the payment card account from one or more servers of the card processing system in response to receiving the transaction authorization request; and insert the characteristics of the electronic card transaction, the parameter ranges corresponding to the payment card account, and the stored repayment history of the payment card account into the funding request to the external gateway ([0075]).
With respect to Claim 20, Atkins teaches determining a balance of the payment card account according to an interest based on the set of dynamic processing parameters and a transaction amount of the electronic card transaction. [0027]
Response to remarks
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 1/28/2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive where objections/rejections are maintained. The independent claims have been primarily amended to recite wherein in the external gateway is a third party funding source. The amendment fails to offer an innovative concept as seen by the prior art references of record. Atkins ([0038]) teaches that the sub-processing system may be associated with a merchant or merchant bank (as opposed to the issuer), which could decide to fund a transaction despite the customer exceeding the daily limit on the card. As per § 101, the claims continue to recite inventions including the abstract ideas of an external gateway separate from the issuer, and of provisioning a variable or transaction specific interest rate/reward rate. Determining dynamic parameters, and moreover, tiers of values, such as the interest or rewards rate to be applied to a credit card transaction fail to offer an innovative concept by itself. It is well-known, routine, and conventional to provide predetermined range of interest rate values (see prior art references of record). As per the prior art rejections, Atkins teaches the gateway being separate from the issuer, and ¶ [0038] expressly discloses that it may be associated with the merchant or merchant bank (e.g., third party funding source). Krajicek teaches tiers of interest rates being offered for a payment account. Harrison teaches dynamically determining a rewards rate depending upon the merchant code, in a particular transaction in real-time; and Atkins teaches the structural configuration of the payment system as expressed above. As such, Applicant’s traversal of the prior combination, as applied to the amendment, is not persuasive. Please note that the applied reference(s) need not use the same terminology, or disclose the limitation verbatim, and also that the entirety of a prior art reference is to be applied to the respective claim(s), such that the pinpoint citations above are exemplary and provided for Applicant’s benefit; other locations within the applied reference(s) may further support the rejection. MPEP 2141.02(VI).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-3082. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00, alternating Fri. off.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM J JACOB/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights