DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/470,651 filed on October 8, 2025 in which claims 1-5 were amended and claims 6-8 were added.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 are pending, of which claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); claims 1, 2, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1); and claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Title of the Invention
37 C.F.R. § 1.72(a) states: “The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible” (emphasis added). Thus, the title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive.
A new title is required that is more clearly and more specifically indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a device configured to improve sensor recognition” and “a device configured to improve recognition of the second sensor” in claims 1 and 8, respectively.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the claim limitations “a device configured to improve sensor recognition” and “a device configured to improve recognition of the second sensor” invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
When a claim invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) for a computer implemented means-plus-function claim, the specification must disclose the specific algorithm required to transform the general-purpose computing equipment into the required special purpose computer. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B).
The examiner could not find any specific structure or specific algorithm in the present specification, nor has Applicant pointed to such structure or algorithm.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)).
If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, these claims include the limitations “a device configured to improve sensor recognition” and “a device configured to improve recognition of the second sensor,” respectively. (Emphasis added). The term “improve” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “improve” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know when the sensor was “improved” instead of merely changed.
Therefore, these limitations are indefinite.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, these claims include the limitations that refer to the driving being “difficult.” The term “difficult” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “difficult” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know when driving was “difficult” instead of merely less than optimal.
Therefore, these limitations are indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-7, these claims depend from at least one of the above claims and, therefore, inherit the rejection of that claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujita et al., US Publication 2021/0107528 (hereinafter Fujita), as cited on the Information Disclosure Statement dated September 20, 2023.
Regarding claim 1, Fujita discloses a vehicle control system comprising “a sensor configured to acquire recognition information including information on a target around a vehicle” (Fujita ¶¶ 37-38) where sensors mounted on vehicle M1 acquire “information indicating a driving environment of the vehicle” (Fujita ¶ 37) and giving examples of the sensors detecting information of “a stationary object on a road, such as a guardrail, or a wall, a road surface, a white line, a pole, or a characteristic object such as a signboard” (Fujita ¶ 38), each of which are “a target around the vehicle” as claimed. Additionally, Fujita discloses “a device configured to improve sensor recognition” (Fujita ¶ 107) by including additional sensors “so that reliability increases” (i.e., sensor recognition is improved). Further, Fujita discloses “a first processor configured to control autonomous driving of the vehicle” (Fujita ¶¶ 41, 73, 80) where second unit 20 includes second controller 22 (Fujita ¶ 73) that includes a processor (Fujita ¶ 80) and the second unit performs “motion control” of the vehicle (i.e., control autonomous driving, Fujita ¶ 41). Here, the “second” unit is mapped to the claimed “first” processor. Moreover, Fujita discloses “a second processor different from the first processor” (Fujita ¶¶ 36, 55, 61) where first unit 10 is “physically separate” (i.e., different) from the second unit 20 and includes first controller 12 (Fujita ¶ 55), which includes a processor 122 (Fujita ¶ 61). Here, the “first” unit is mapped to the claimed “second” processor. Likewise, Fujita discloses “the second processor being configured to communicate with the sensor, the device, and the first processor” (Fujita ¶¶ 37, 107, and Fig. 1) wherein the first unit controller communicates with the sensors (Fujita ¶ 37), receives the reliability information (i.e., communicates with the device, Fujita ¶ 107), and is shown to communicate with the second unit (i.e., the first processor, Fujita Fig. 1). Fujita also discloses “acquire the recognition information from the sensor.” (Fujita ¶ 37). In addition, Fujita discloses “determine whether continuing the autonomous driving by the first processor is difficult” (Fujita ¶ 46) where the first unit recognizes that preceding vehicle V1 needs to be passed (i.e., it will be difficult to continue driving without passing preceding vehicle V1). Furthermore, Fujita discloses “stop the vehicle based on the recognition information in response to determining that continuing the autonomous driving is difficult” (Fujita ¶ 47) by stopping the vehicle on the shoulder based on the generated trajectory, which may include the trajectory generated to pass preceding vehicle V1. Moreover, Fujita discloses “wherein in response to a failure of (i) a part of a function of the sensor or (ii) a part of a function of the device the second processor is configured to notify the first processor of a content of the failure” (Fujita ¶ 126) where the sensors of the first unit (i.e., the second processor) have a high failure degree (i.e., a failure of a part of a function of the sensor), that information is passed to the second unit (i.e., the first processor is notified) in order to change the intervention degree. Likewise, Fujita discloses “the first processor is configured to set a travel route to a destination during the autonomous driving based on the content of the failure” (Fujita ¶¶ 112-113) by giving examples of the trajectory being modified based on changes to the intervention degree. Finally, Fujita discloses “the first processor is configured to autonomously drive the vehicle in accordance with the set travel route” (Fujita ¶ 40) where the motion control occurs based on all the data set.
Regarding claim 2, Fujita discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Fujita discloses “the first processor is configured to set the travel route to avoid an avoidance area stored in a hazard map, the avoidance area corresponding to each content of the failure.” (Fujita ¶ 43).
Regarding claim 5, Fujita discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Fujita discloses “in response to a failure related to a failure related to the sensor, the first processor is configured to set the travel route to avoid a densely populated area in which a population density is equal to or greater than a threshold as the avoidance area” (Fujita ¶¶ 56, 71, 123) by detecting a failure (Fujita ¶ 123) of a surrounding situation sensor (i.e., a recognition system, Fujita ¶ 56) that results in the avoidance of an area with any people (I.e., a density equal to or greater than a threshold of 1, Fujita ¶ 71).
Regarding claim 6, Fujita discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Fujita discloses “wherein the first processor is configured to set the travel route to include a priority area that corresponds to the each content of the failure” (Fujita ¶¶ 43, 132) where the avoidance target is based on the failure degree (Fujita ¶ 132) and is the area necessary to avoid the collision (i.e., a priority area).
Regarding claim 7, Fujita discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Fujita discloses “further comprising an autonomous driving sensor different from the sensor, the autonomous driving sensor being configured to acquire autonomous driving information related to a situation around the vehicle” (Fujita ¶ 75) where the second unit includes additional sensors (i.e., different from the sensor) that acquire information about “a surrounding vehicle, a pedestrian, a roadside structure, an obstacle, a white line, a signal, and the like.” Further, Fujita discloses “wherein the first processor is configured to receive the autonomous driving information” (Fujita ¶ 73) where the second unit (i.e., the first processor) receives the information from surrounding situation sensors 241. Finally, Fujita discloses “control autonomous driving based on the autonomous driving information without using the recognition information” (Fujita ¶ 96) where the second controller changes the operating conditions, meaning that the recognition information is not being used.
Regarding claim 8, Fujita discloses an autonomous driving vehicle comprising “a first sensor configured to acquire first information related to a situation around the vehicle” (Fujita ¶ 75) where the second unit includes additionally sensors (i.e., different from the second sensor, see below) that acquire information about “a surrounding vehicle, a pedestrian, a roadside structure, an obstacle, a white line, a signal, and the like.” Additionally, Fujita discloses “a second sensor configured to acquire a recognition information including information on a target round the vehicle, the second sensor being different from the first sensor” (Fujita ¶¶ 37-38) where sensors mounted on vehicle M1 acquire “information indicating a driving environment of the vehicle” (Fujita ¶ 37) and giving examples of the sensors detecting information of “a stationary object on a road, such as a guardrail, or a wall, a road surface, a white line, a pole, or a characteristic object such as a signboard” (Fujita ¶ 38), each of which are “a target around the vehicle” as claimed. Further, Fujita discloses “a device configured to improve recognition of the second sensor” (Fujita ¶ 107) by including additional sensors “so that reliability increases” (i.e., sensor recognition is improved). Moreover, Fujita discloses “a first processor configured to, communicate with the first sensor, receive the first information from the first sensor, and control autonomous driving of the vehicle based on the first information without the recognition information” (Fujita ¶¶ 41, 73, 80) where second unit 20 includes second controller 22 (Fujita ¶ 73) that includes a processor (Fujita ¶ 80) and the second unit performs “motion control” of the vehicle (i.e., control autonomous driving, Fujita ¶ 41). Here, the “second” unit is mapped to the claimed “first” processor. Likewise, Fujita discloses “a second processor different from the first processor” (Fujita ¶¶ 36, 55, 61) where first unit 10 is “physically separate” (i.e., different) from the second unit 20 and includes first controller 12 (Fujita ¶ 55), which includes a processor 122 (Fujita ¶ 61). Here, the “first” unit is mapped to the claimed “second” processor. Fujita also discloses “the second processor being configured to communicate with the second sensor, the device, and the first processor” (Fujita ¶¶ 37, 107, and Fig. 1) wherein the first unit controller communicates with the sensors (Fujita ¶ 37), receives the reliability information (i.e., communicates with the device, Fujita ¶ 107), and is shown to communicate with the second unit (i.e., the first processor, Fujita Fig. 1). In addition, Fujita discloses “acquire the recognition information from the second sensor.” (Fujita ¶ 37). Furthermore, Fujita discloses “determine whether continuing the autonomous driving by the first processor is difficult” (Fujita ¶ 46) where the first unit recognizes that preceding vehicle V1 needs to be passed (i.e., it will be difficult to continue driving without passing preceding vehicle V1). Moreover, Fujita discloses “in response to determining that continuing the autonomous driving is difficult, stop the vehicle based on the recognition information” (Fujita ¶ 47) by stopping the vehicle on the shoulder based on the generated trajectory, which may include the trajectory generated to pass preceding vehicle V1. Likewise, Fujita discloses “wherein: in response to a failure of (i) a part of a function of the second sensor or (ii) a part of a function of the device, the second processor is configured to notify the first processor of a content of the failure” (Fujita ¶ 126) where the sensors of the first unit (i.e., the second processor) have a high failure degree (i.e., a failure of a part of a function of the sensor), that information is passed to the second unit (i.e., the first processor is notified) in order to change the intervention degree. Fujita also discloses “the first processor is configured to set a travel route to a destination during the autonomous driving based on the content of the failure” (Fujita ¶¶ 112-113) by giving examples of the trajectory being modified based on changes to the intervention degree. Finally, Fujita discloses “the first processor is configured to autonomously drive the vehicle in accordance with the set travel route” (Fujita ¶ 40) where the motion control occurs based on all the data set.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
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. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of Balasundrum, US Publication 2017/0259729 (hereinafter Balasundrum).
Regarding claim 3, Fujita discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Fujita does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the device is a light mounted on the vehicle; and in response to a failure of an auto-high beam function of the light, the first processor is configured to set the travel route to avoid a dark place in which an average brightness is less than a threshold as the avoidance area.”
However, Balasundrum discloses a vehicle safety system “wherein the device is a light mounted on the vehicle.” (Balasundrum ¶ 28). Additionally, Balasundrum discloses “in response to a failure of an auto-high beam function of the light, the first processor is configured to determine if an average brightness is less than a threshold as the avoidance area.” (Balasundrum Claim 18).
Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when Balasundrum was combined with Fujita, the safe route planning of Fujita would use the darkness threshold calculation of Balasundrum when generating the travel route. Therefore, the combination of Fujita and Balasundrum at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “in response to a failure of an auto-high beam function of the light, the first processor is configured to set the travel route to avoid a dark place in which an average brightness is less than a threshold as the avoidance area,” rendering it obvious.
Fujita and Balasundrum are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle safety systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fujita and Balasundrum before him or her to modify the safety system of Fujita to include the high beam detection and darkness threshold of Balasundrum.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that enabling the vehicle to avoid dark areas reliability and accuracy the safety of the remaining image based sensors, such as those used in Fujita.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of Lopez et al., US Publication 2021/0179127 (hereinafter Lopez), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated August 7, 2025.
Regarding claim 4, Fujita discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Fujita does not appear to explicitly disclose “in response to a sensor temperature abnormality in which the sensor becomes higher than a predetermined temperature, the first processor is configured to set the travel route to avoid an area in which a building or a natural object with a height equal to or higher than a predetermined height does not exist, as the avoidance area.”
However, Lopez discloses a system for determining a vehicle needs to pull over and stop due to a sensor malfunction (Lopez ¶ 17) wherein “a sensor temperature abnormality in which the sensor becomes higher than a predetermined temperature” (Lopez ¶ 10) where the error is from a temperature control system, such as an overheating fault. Additionally, Lopez discloses “in response to a sensor temperature abnormality in which the sensor becomes higher than a predetermined temperature, the first processor is configured to set the travel route to avoid an area in which a building or a natural object with a height equal to or higher than a predetermined height does not exist, as the avoidance area” (Lopez ¶ 53) where the alternate trajectory is determined based on the z-position (i.e., height) of an object such as a building and the result of a light sensor, which would naturally result in the area being one in which a building is below a height required for a set amount of light to be present.
Fujita and Lopez are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of systems for stopping a vehicle in response to a sensor error.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fujita and Lopez before him or her to modify the sensor error of Fujita to include the overheating fault error of Lopez.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the safety of the vehicle in the event of an overheating fault. (Lopez ¶ 19).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 8, 2025, with respect to the prior claim interpretations, prior rejections of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Remarks 7-8) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior claim interpretations, prior rejections of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed October 8, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. However, after reviewing the claims, as amended, in their totality, the rejection has, nonetheless, been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed October 8, 2024, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) I view of Fujita (Remarks 10-12) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues Fujita fails to disclose the newly amended features. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive for the reasons presented in the updated rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662