DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, and 8-18, the claims are rejected as lacking adequate written descriptive support for the broad device, method, and product encompassed by the claim language. Applicant has not adequately described the claimed invention because the specification fails to provide adequate written descriptive support for the position measurement (i.e. claims 1, 9, 11), accuracy index (i.e. claims 1, 9, 11), position of the positioning device (i.e. claims 8, 10, 12-18), state estimation equation (i.e. claims 8, 10, 12-18), and error variance (i.e. claims 8, 10, 12-18) as claimed. How and in what manner are such position measurement, accuracy index, position of the positioning device, and error variance are determined; and what exactly a state estimation equation is were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant's disclosure is a laundry list of abstract variables and a result, without specifically providing any specific concrete disclosure as to how to combine the variables to produce the result claimed.
The specification mostly described such claimed position measurement, accuracy index, position of the positioning device, state estimation equation, and error variance broadly and narratively. It is pure speculation on the part of the Examiner to presume that applicant has a working embodiment of the claimed invention based on the disclosure as filed. While Applicant has disclosed some variables to be used in implementing the claimed invention, Applicant fails to adequately provide with disclosure of how the variables are defined, weighted, and combined to execute and produce the claimed invention.
A written descriptive support for a claimed invention is adequate where the disclosure specifies “relevant identifying characteristics,” such as “complete or partial structure, other physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or some combination of such characteristics.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. GenProbe Inc., , 323 F.3d 956, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2002). However, that is not a case here. “[P]roof of a reduction to practice, absent an adequate description in the specification of what is reduced to practice, does not serve to describe or identify the invention for purposes of [the written description requirement].” Enzo, 323 F.3d at 969.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 11, it is unclear of what “position measurement” is referenced or belongs to. Is it position measurement of the device, a satellite, or something else?
Still regarding claims 1, 9, and 11, the claims are rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential step(s) or an end result. The omitted step(s) is the step(s) wherein the claimed limitation is actually doing something tangible with the end result, i.e. the predicted convergence time of the position measurement estimated is put to use or output a concrete result.
Regarding claim 8, it recites the limitation “the position of the positioning device” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, it recites the limitation “the position of the positioning device” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, it recites the limitation “the position of the positioning device” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, it recites the limitation “the position of the positioning device” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, it recites the limitation “the position of the positioning device” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, it recites the limitation “the position of the positioning device” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 16, it recites the limitation “the position of the positioning device” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 17, it recites the limitation “the position of the positioning device” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, it recites the limitation “the position of the positioning device” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the positioning device, method, and product for antenna calibration that is accomplished through a series of mental processes. The claims also require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person utilizing mathematical calculations. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267—68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract...is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,…and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 ( and its dependents) recites a device. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 9 (and its dependent) recites a method. Thus, the claim is a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 11 (and its dependent) recites a product. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claims recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 9, and similarly claims 1 and 11, recites the steps of:
performing position measurement using carrier phases of a plurality of position measurement signals to calculate a position measurement result and an accuracy index of the position measurement result;
estimating a predicted convergence time of the position measurement based on the accuracy index.
The “performing” step may be performed by observing the carrier phases and calculating a position measurement result and an accuracy index which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation and evaluation.
The “estimating” step may be performed in the human mind using evaluation.
Therefore, such steps of as claimed in claims 1, 9, and 11 encompass processes that can be performed mentally; thus, fall within “mental processes” groupings of abstract ideas.
In addition, dependent claims 2-8, 10, and 12-18 further claiming information gleaned from the mental processes and/or mathematical calculations.
Regarding claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, the further steps of estimating the convergence prediction time and performing the position measurement as claimed may be practically performed in the human mind and/or mathematical calculations using observation, evaluation, and judgment.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-8, 10, and 12-18 also falls within the “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
Since the claims recite an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The only additional elements of claim 9, and similarly claims 1 and 11, is “using carrier phases of a plurality of position measurement signals to calculate a position measurement result and an accuracy index of the position measurement result”. These limitations, at a high-level of generality, merely recites data gathering steps for further analyzing/determining steps. As such, it amounts to no more than insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception. In addition, claims 1-18 require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, convention” in the field.
As stated above, claims 1-18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements amount to no more than data gathering steps and mental processes. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide an inventive concept.
The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soga et al (WO 2015099194 in which an English machine translation incorporated herein).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claims 9 and 11, Soga et al disclose a positioning device (i.e. position terminal 10, positioning unit 100 of Fig 2) (page 7) comprising:
processing circuitry (i.e. control unit) (page 7, first paragraph) configured to:
perform position measurement using carrier phases of a plurality of position measurement signals to calculate a position measurement result (i.e. carrier phase measurement, carrier phase distance) (page 3) and an accuracy index (i.e. broadly reads on error factor) of the position measurement result (i.e. “the positioning terminal 10 executes arithmetic processing for converging each value of the error factor by continuous observation while repeating the above processing step by step.”; “At this time, the positioning terminal 10 holds the value of the position of the own terminal estimated or determined from the known parameters not based on the navigation signal in the storage area, and each value of the error factor is obtained by continuous observation. Used as an initial value or one additional value when converging.”) (page 5, paragraphs 5-6);
estimate a predicted convergence time (i.e. convergence period) of the position measurement based on the accuracy index (page 4, first paragraph).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 2, Soga et al disclose the processing circuitry is further configured: to estimate the convergence prediction time based on a scale of the accuracy index (i.e. each value of the error factor broadly reads on the scale of the accuracy index) (page 4, first paragraph; page 5, paragraphs 5-8).
Regarding claim 3, Soga et al disclose the processing circuitry is further configured: to estimate the convergence prediction time to be shorter as the accuracy index becomes smaller (page 5, paragraphs 5-8; page 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soga et al.
Regarding claims 4-7, Soga et al do not explicitly disclose the processing circuitry is further configured to estimate the convergence prediction time as claimed. Instead, Soga et al teach in the same field of endeavor the processing circuitry is configured to estimate the convergence prediction time based on a scale of the accuracy index and further configure to estimate the convergence prediction time to be shorter as the accuracy index becomes smaller (page 4, first paragraph; page 5, paragraphs 5-8; page 6). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to estimate the convergence prediction time as claimed, since Applicant has not disclosed that such estimating of the convergence prediction time solves any stated problem. It appears that the invention would perform equally well with the estimation of the convergence prediction time based on a scale of the accuracy index and the estimation of the convergence prediction time to be shorter as the accuracy index becomes smaller as taught by Soga et al for position accuracy determination.
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10, 12-18 are rejected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and if overcome 35 USC 112(a), 35 USC 112(b), and 35 USC 101 rejections.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2025/0102684 discloses a positioning device can include a receiver, a positioning processor, an individual accuracy index calculator, and an integrated accuracy index calculator. The receiver can receive positioning signals from a plurality of positioning satellites SAT. The positioning processor can perform positioning calculation using the received positioning signals. The individual accuracy index calculator can calculate a plurality of different individual accuracy indexes based on an error covariance matrix used for the positioning calculation, a carrier phase by the positioning signal, and a positioning result by the positioning calculation, respectively. The integrated accuracy index calculator can calculate an integrated accuracy index using the plurality of individual accuracy indexes.
US 2024/0027630 discloses a mobile device may, for each epoch of a plurality of epochs, determine a respective value of pseudorange noise and multipath error of pseudo-range measurements performed by a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) device. The mobile device may receive the pseudo-range measurements from the GNSS device. The mobile device may determine one or more statistical values of the pseudorange noise and multipath error values for the plurality of epochs. The mobile device may determine a position error (PE) value based on the one or more statistical values. The mobile device may, for at least one epoch of the plurality of epochs, output an indication of the determined PE.
US 2022/0357464 discloses a Precise Point Positioning (PPP) system in which one or more Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signals are obtained by a mobile device. The mobile device can obtain position information based on one or more position sources, where the position information is indicative of a location of the mobile device. One or more PPP positions of the mobile device can be determined based on the position information and the one or more GNSS signals, where a position uncertainty of the position information meets or is below an uncertainty threshold. A determination of whether at least one PPP position meets or is below one or more convergence thresholds can be made. In response to determining that at least one PPP position meets or is below the one or more convergence thresholds, the at least one PPP position can be provided.
US 11,754,722 discloses an information processing apparatus includes a positioning signal acquisition unit configured to acquire a positioning signal transmitted from a positioning satellite and a parameter acquisition unit configured to acquire a parameter preset based on the positioning signal. The information processing apparatus further includes a storage unit configured to store a plurality of the parameters at a plurality of time points in a preset period, an accuracy index calculation unit configured to or calculating a positioning accuracy index from the plurality of stored parameters, and an output unit configured to output the positioning accuracy index.
US 11,221,417 discloses a system and method for estimating a position. In some embodiments, the method includes receiving global navigation satellite system signals from a plurality of global navigation satellite system satellites; receiving a plurality of reference station measurements; receiving external error correction data; generating first position estimates with a Real-Time Kinematic method, based on the global navigation satellite system signals and on the reference station measurements; and generating second position estimates with a Precise Point Positioning method, based on the global navigation satellite system signals, on the external error correction data, and on first position estimates.
US 8,704,708 discloses a filter estimates a float value for each float ambiguity of a state vector determined from GNSS signals. Integer values are assigned to at least a subgroup of the estimated float values to define integer ambiguity candidate sets. A quality measure is determined for each of the candidate sets. An expectation value of the candidate set having the best quality measure is determined. An error measure as a ratio of the best quality measure to the expectation value is determined. The quality measures of the candidate sets is adapted as a function of the error measure. A weighted average of a subgroup of the candidate sets on the basis of the adapted quality measures is formed. Ambiguities of the weighted average can be used in subsequent operations to aid in determining a position of the receiver.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646