DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
The present application was subject to a restriction, mailed to applicant December 19, 2025, including two groups. The following is a restatement of the groups, including proper claim numbering for each group, correcting for the previous typographical error:
I. Claim(s) 1-11, drawn to directional flow axis detection (see Applicant’s specification filed 12/4/2023, pages 12-17), which is dealing with animation rigging of 2D objects, classified in G06T30/80.
II. Claim(s) 12-20, drawn to directional flow axis caching and edit operations (see Applicant’s specification filed 12/4/2023, pages 17-22) dealing with the management of memory, classified in G06T1/60 with CPC index G09G2360/121.
In response to an office restriction requirement, applicant elected Group II, including claims 12-20, without traverse on January 16, 2026. As a result, claims 1-11 were not elected. Applicant chose to withdraw claims 1-11 from consideration. In response to the instant office action, applicant should cancel claims 1-11 to proceed with prosecution of the pending claims.
Claims 12-20 are currently under consideration.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 17-20, Applicant has acted as their own lexicographer and explicitly defined “Computer-readable storage medium” as excluding signals per se. Applicant’s specification filed December 4, 2023 explicitly states (emphasis added):
[0065] “Computer-readable storage media” refers to media and/or devices that enable persistent and/or non-transitory storage of information (e.g., instructions are stored thereon that are executable by a processing device) in contrast to mere signal transmission, carrier waves, or signals per se. Thus, computer-readable storage media refers to non-signal bearing media. The computer-readable storage media includes hardware such as volatile and non-volatile, removable and non-removable media and/or storage devices implemented in a method or technology suitable for storage of information such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, logic elements/circuits, or other data. Examples of computer-readable storage media include but are not limited to RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical storage, hard disks, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or other storage device, tangible media, or article of manufacture suitable to store the desired information and are accessible by a computer.
Accordingly, claims 17-20 are eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an equivalent of “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” under applicant’s explicit definition.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites “plurality of directional flow axis” in lines 4 and 6 which appears to contain a grammatical/typographical error using the singular form of the term “axis” while referring to a plurality, where “axes” would be more appropriate.”
Claims 18-20 depend from claim 17 and incorporate the same language as claim 17 and are therefore objected to for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 17.
Claim 18 also recites the singular “axis” when referring to a plurality which appears to be grammatical/typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-16 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 claim 12, the claim recites “locating at least one angular bin of a plurality of angular bins in an axis cache, the at least one angular bin located within a threshold angular distance of a directional flow axis of the first object” in lines 7-9. These limitations correspond to computer-implemented functional claim limitations as discussed in MPEP 2161.01. Applicant’s disclosure regarding these functions does not appear to describe the methodology by which the claimed functions are performed. Applicant’s Specification (references made to PG-Pub US2025/0182308A1, hereinafter “Spec.”) discloses, “The at least one angular bin is located by the edit operation module 910, for instance, as being within a threshold angular distance of a directional flow axis 222 of the first object (block 1308)” (Spec. ¶52). Applicant’s specification, however, does not appear to provide any explanation, algorithm, or description of how the angular bin in a cache is located based on an angular distance of the bin to a graphical element.
As explained in MPEP 2161.01 I, paragraphs 6-8, "original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. […] An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. V. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement." With respect to the claimed computer functional limitations of "locating at least one angular bin of a plurality of angular bins in an axis cache, the at least one angular bin located within a threshold angular distance of a directional flow axis of the first object", there is no description of an algorithm, steps, or procedure showing how the inventor(s) intended the functions to be performed. Therefore, the functions recited in claims 12 correspond to 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
Claims 13-16 depend from claim 12 and incorporate the same language which gives rise to the rejection of claim 12 without curing the noted deficiencies, and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 12 set forth above.
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.
Claim 12-16 and 19-20 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 claim 12, the claim recites “locating at least one angular bin of a plurality of angular bins in an axis cache, the at least one angular bin located within a threshold angular distance of a directional flow axis of the first object” in lines 7-9.
Applicant’s Specification (references made to PG-Pub US2025/0182308A1, hereinafter “Spec.”) discloses “directional flow axis 222” in Figure 6 and ¶46, as a “a center of the boundary of 218” which is formed from the two axes along the rectangle boundary of the visual object 118, which ¶28 discloses as a vector object or raster object, i.e. a digital image object. In other words, the “directional flow axis” is related to the visual image object, and is a geometric line corresponding to the visual image itself. The Spec. in ¶46 further states the “the directional flow axis 222 is associated with an angular value 604 with respect to a reference axis 606 in the illustrated example”, referring to Figure 6. This is a geometric characteristic of the image itself, i.e. an angle between two geometric axes. Claim 1 then states that “the at least one angular bin” [is] located within a threshold distance of a directional flow axis of the first object.” Applicant’s Spec., however, discloses in ¶51 that “the axis caching module 122 caches the directional flow axis 222 of each of the objects 118 in the digital image 106 into a respective angular bin 908 based on a corresponding angular value (e.g., slope) in relation to a coordinate axis.” As such, the cache stores directional flow axes, based on a corresponding angular value or slope. The claim then requires finding an angular bin of the cache that is “within a threshold distance of a directional flow axis of the first object.” In other words, the cache bin (or memory space or data structure in memory) must be within a threshold angular distance of the visual image object. As to what is being compared in two separate data spaces (i.e. memory location with a geometric visual angle) to determine a threshold is unclear, and therefore the claim is indefinite as to how the locating is performed as the claim requires comparing a visual angle distance of a visual object to a bin in memory, or cache. Accordingly, the claim fails to meet the definiteness standard of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 13-16 depend from claim 12 and incorporate the same indefinite language without further clarifying or correcting the indefinite language of claim 12.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “wherein the edit operation includes output of a visual guide in the user interface indicating a respective said directional flow axis in relation to a respective said object” (emphasis added to highlight issue). The claim depends from claim 12, which introduces “a directional flow axis of the first object”, “a second directional flow axis”, “a first object” and “a second object”, but does not recite merely “an object”. Claim 16 recites “a respective said flow directional flow” and “a respective said object”, which are singular, but uses antecedent “said” in relation to both “directional flow axis” and “object.” The claim is indefinite as to what “a respective said directional flow axis” refers to. Is it intended to mean “the directional flow axis of the first object”, “the second directional flow axis” or both. The same issue relates to referring to “said object”. The claim is indefinite whether it intends for each previously introduced flow axis to have a visual guide, which seems to go against the use of the singular tense, or whether only a single guide is provided with respect to a single object and axis, in which case the claim is indefinite as to which one. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite.
** For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as meaning “wherein the edit operation includes output of a visual guide in the user interface indicating either the directional flow axis of the first object in relation to the first object or the second directional flow axis in relation to the identified second object.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “said object” in line 3 and line 4, as well as “said directional flow axis” which lack antecedent bases in the claim.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “wherein the controlling of the at least one edit operation includes output of a visual guide in the user interface indicating a respective said directional flow axis in relation to a respective said object” (emphasis added). The claim depends from claim 17 which introduces “a plurality of directional flow axis for a plurality of objects.” The reference of claim 20 to “said directional flow axis” and “said object” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear which of the plurality of previous axes and objects are being referred to. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite.
** For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting “wherein the controlling of the at least one edit operation includes output of a visual guide in the user interface indicating a respective first directional flow axis of said plurality of directional flow axes in relation to a respective first object of said plurality of objects”
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.
Claim(s) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jain et al. (US 2022/0130088 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Jain discloses:
A computing device (Jain, Abstract; Fig. 13 and ¶168: computing device) comprising:
A processing device (Jain, Fig. 13 and ¶171: one or more processors); and
A computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, responsive to execution by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform operations (Jain, ¶171: instructions stored on a computer-readable storage medium and executable by processors) including:
Receiving an input associated with an edit operation of a first object in a user interface (Jain, ¶22: the design guide system identifies an angular bin based on an angle corresponding to the user interaction, where the design guide system identifies the target angular linear segment based on a corresponding signed distance relative to the user interaction; ¶26: detecting user interaction with a subject angular linear segment (e.g., movement of an existing segment or creation of a new segment);
Locating at least one angular bin of a plurality of angular bins in an axis cache, the at least one angular bin located as being within a threshold angular distance of a directional flow axis of the first object ([Note for purposes of examination, the locating is interpreted as being based on a comparison of angle data stored in bins in relation to a direction flow axis angle of a first object]
Jain, discloses at least one angular bin of a plurality of angular bins in an axis cache ¶22: the design guide system assigns angular linear segments in a digital design document to angular bins (e.g., based on angular ranges and the corresponding angles of individual linear segments; ¶25: the design guide system also arranges the angular linear segments within the angular bins, where the design guide system sorts the angular linear segments within the angular bins based on angle and signed distance; ¶169: the caching engine 1310 caches locations of digital design objects, including angular linear segments (with corresponding signed distances and angles), in a digital design document;
Jain further discloses locating at least one angular bin in the axis cache, the at least one angular bin located as being within a threshold angular distance a threshold angular distance of a directional flow axis of the first object, i.e. subject angular linear segment: ¶26: in response to detecting user interaction with a subject angular linear segment (e.g., movement of an existing segment or creation of a new segment), the design guide system detects an angle corresponding to the user interaction, where the design guide system compares the angle with the angular ranges of the angular bins to select a set of three angular bins to search; ¶27: because similar angles within the angular bins were previously sorted by signed distance, where the design guide system determines an angle and signed distance between the user interaction (e.g., a subject angular linear segment) and a reference point in the digital design document and performs an efficient binary search within selected angular bins to identify a target angular linear segment that is closest to the user interaction based on the signed distance; ¶29: the design guide system dynamically monitors a digital design document to determine when a user interaction moves within a snapping tolerance of a snappable location, including angular snapping tolerance and the design guide system generates and surfaces the angular snapping guide upon determining that the user interaction comes within a snapping tolerance of a target angular linear segment);
Identifying a second object assigned to the at least one angular bin (Jain, ¶26: the design guide system utilizes this angular binning data structure to efficiently identify target angular linear segments; ¶27: in one or more embodiments the design guide system selects a target angular linear segment from these angular bins by utilizing a particular angle and signed distance, where the design guide system determines an angle and signed distance between the user interaction (e.g., a subject angular linear segment) and a reference point in the digital design document, and then performs an efficient binary search within selected angular bins to identify a target angular linear segment that is closest to the user interaction based on the signed distance – i.e. identify the second object, which is a target angular linear segment); and
Controlling the edit operation of the first object based at least in part on a second directional flow axis of the identified second object obtained from the at least one angular bin (Jain, ¶21: the design guide system can rotate subject angular linear segments so that they are parallel to existing angular linear segments or translate subject angular linear segments so that they are collinear with existing angular linear segments; ¶28: Upon identifying a target angular linear segment, in some embodiments the design guide system then generates an angular snapping guide to align the user interaction to the target angular linear segment and provide a visual indication to the user within the design user interface; ¶31: the design guide system provides an angular snapping guide during a translation to snap a subject angular linear segment to a collinear (or near-collinear) alignment relative to a target angular linear segment)
Regarding claim 13, Jain further discloses:
Wherein the plurality of angular bins corresponds, respectively to a range of angular values (Jain, ¶24: he design guide system then determines angles corresponding to the angular linear segments and assigns the angular linear segments to angular bins by comparing the slope of each angular linear segment with the angular range for each bin; ¶26: the design guide system compares the angle with the angular ranges of the angular bins to select a set of three angular bins to search; ¶27 discloses angles within the angular bins)
Regarding claim 14, Jain further discloses:
Wherein the second object is located from a plurality of objects assigned to the at least one angular bin based on respective distances to the first object in the user interface (Jain, ¶27: design guide system selects a target angular linear segment from these angular bins by utilizing a particular angle and signed distance, isolating a target angular linear segment that is relevant to the user interaction, performing an efficient binary search within selected angular bins to identify a target angular linear segment that is closest to the user interaction based on the signed distance)
Regarding claim 15, Jain further discloses:
Wherein the edit operation includes a snapping operation in which a first said object is rotated in relation to a second said object in the user interface by aligning a first said directional flow axis of the first said object with a second said directional flow axis of the second said object (Jain, ¶26: the design guide system utilizes this angular binning data structure to efficiently identify target angular linear segments and generate angular snapping guides, where the design guide system efficiently identifies a target angular linear segment for generating an angular snapping guide by first identifying one or more angular bins corresponding to the angle of the user interaction, comparing the angle with the angular ranges of the angular bins to select a set of three angular bins to search; ¶28: the design guide system then generates an angular snapping guide to align the user interaction to the target angular linear segment and provide a visual indication to the user within the design user interface, including generates a visual representation of an angular snapping guide as a dashed line within the digital design document to indicate (e.g., provide a hint) to the user that the design guide system is snapping a user interaction to a particular location/orientation of an existing digital design object, snaps cursor movements or other editing functions onto angular snapping guides, and snaps cursor movements or other editing functions onto angular snapping guides; See Fig. 6A and ¶90 disclsoes snapping rotation to angular snapping guides)
Regarding claim 16, Jain further discloses:
Wherein the edit operation includes output of a visual guide in the user interface indicating a respective said directional flow axis in relation to a respective said object (Jain, ¶28: Upon identifying a target angular linear segment, the design guide system then generates an angular snapping guide to align the user interaction to the target angular linear segment and provide a visual indication to the user within the design user interface, including generates a visual representation of an angular snapping guide as a dashed line within the digital design document to indicate (e.g., provide a hint) to the user that the design guide system is snapping a user interaction to a particular location/orientation of an existing digital design object, snaps cursor movements or other editing functions onto angular snapping guides, and snaps cursor movements or other editing functions onto angular snapping guides; Fig. 6A)
Regarding claim 17, Jain discloses:
One or more computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, responsive to execution by a processing device, causes the processing device to perform operations (Jain, ¶¶170-171: instructions stored on a computer-readable storage medium and executable by processors) including:
Detecting a plurality of directional flow axis for a plurality of objects displayed in a user interface; (Jain, ¶22: the design guide system assigns angular linear segments in a digital design document to angular bins (e.g., based on angular ranges and the corresponding angles of individual linear segments; ¶25: the design guide system also arranges the angular linear segments within the angular bins, where the design guide system sorts the angular linear segments within the angular bins based on angle and signed distance; ¶169: the caching engine 1310 caches locations of digital design objects, including angular linear segments (with corresponding signed distances and angles), in a digital design document)
Caching the plurality of directional flow axis as associated with object identifiers of the plurality of objects in axis cache (Jain, ¶25: the design guide system also arranges the angular linear segments within the angular bins, where the design guide system sorts the angular linear segments within the angular bins based on angle and signed distance; ¶169: the caching engine 1310 caches locations of digital design objects, including angular linear segments (with corresponding signed distances and angles), in a digital design document); and
Controlling at least one edit operation based on the axis cache. (Jain, ¶21: the design guide system can rotate subject angular linear segments so that they are parallel to existing angular linear segments or translate subject angular linear segments so that they are collinear with existing angular linear segments; ¶28: Upon identifying a target angular linear segment, in some embodiments the design guide system then generates an angular snapping guide to align the user interaction to the target angular linear segment and provide a visual indication to the user within the design user interface; ¶31: the design guide system provides an angular snapping guide during a translation to snap a subject angular linear segment to a collinear (or near-collinear) alignment relative to a target angular linear segment)
Regarding claim 18, Jain further discloses:
Wherein the plurality of directional flow axis is cached in respective angular bin of a plurality of angular bins defined within the axis cache (Jain, ¶25: the design guide system also arranges the angular linear segments within the angular bins, where the design guide system sorts the angular linear segments within the angular bins based on angle and signed distance; ¶169: the caching engine 1310 caches locations of digital design objects, including angular linear segments (with corresponding signed distances and angles), in a digital design document)
Regarding claim 19, Jain further discloses:
Wherein the controlling of the at least one edit operation includes a snapping operation in which a first said object is rotated in relation to a second said object in the user interface by aligning a first said directional flow axis of the first said object with a second said directional flow axis of the second said object (Jain, ¶21: the design guide system can rotate subject angular linear segments so that they are parallel to existing angular linear segments or translate subject angular linear segments so that they are collinear with existing angular linear segments; ¶26: the design guide system utilizes this angular binning data structure to efficiently identify target angular linear segments and generate angular snapping guides, where the design guide system efficiently identifies a target angular linear segment for generating an angular snapping guide by first identifying one or more angular bins corresponding to the angle of the user interaction, comparing the angle with the angular ranges of the angular bins to select a set of three angular bins to search; ¶28: the design guide system then generates an angular snapping guide to align the user interaction to the target angular linear segment and provide a visual indication to the user within the design user interface, including generates a visual representation of an angular snapping guide as a dashed line within the digital design document to indicate (e.g., provide a hint) to the user that the design guide system is snapping a user interaction to a particular location/orientation of an existing digital design object, snaps cursor movements or other editing functions onto angular snapping guides, and snaps cursor movements or other editing functions onto angular snapping guides; ¶31: the design guide system provides an angular snapping guide during a translation to snap a subject angular linear segment to a collinear (or near-collinear) alignment relative to a target angular linear segment; See Fig. 6A and ¶90 discloses snapping rotation to angular snapping guides)
Regarding claim 20, Jain further discloses:
Wherein the controlling of the at least one edit operation includes output of a visual guide in the user interface indicating a respective said directional flow axis in relation to a respective said object (Jain, ¶28: Upon identifying a target angular linear segment, the design guide system then generates an angular snapping guide to align the user interaction to the target angular linear segment and provide a visual indication to the user within the design user interface, including generates a visual representation of an angular snapping guide as a dashed line within the digital design document to indicate (e.g., provide a hint) to the user that the design guide system is snapping a user interaction to a particular location/orientation of an existing digital design object, snaps cursor movements or other editing functions onto angular snapping guides, and snaps cursor movements or other editing functions onto angular snapping guides; Fig. 6A)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hoover et al. (US-20210208404-A1) is related art as it discloses technology for automatically aligning virtual objects in a virtual space based on snapping to linear guidelines, including the rotation of the object to match with a guideline or normal (See e.g. ¶31 disclosing automatically snapping virtual object to target object; ¶32 disclosing the alignment of normal between virtual objects)
Jindal et al. (US 2022/0301242 A1) discloses related art for generating candidate mirror snap points using determined axes of symmetry, by receiving vector object data describing a set of points of a vector object, generating convex polygons that enclose the set of points and identifies a particular convex polygon that has a smallest area, and generating an indication for display in a user interface of a candidate snap point based on the axis of symmetry and a point of the set of points of the vector object (see Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A BEUTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (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, DANIEL HAJNIK can be reached at 571-272-7642. 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.
/WILLIAM A BEUTEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616