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. 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 limitation(s) is/are as follows. “ a paper sheet identification device ” in line 2 of C laim 1 . “ a paper sheet receiving device ” in line 3 of Claim 1. “ a paper sheet management device ” in line 5 of Claim 1. “ a decision unit ” in line 8 of Claim 1. “ a transmission unit ” in line 10 of Claim 1. “ a reception unit ” in line 13 of Claim 1. “ a strength setting unit ” in line 14 of Claim 1. “ a n identification unit ” in line 16 of Claim 1. “ a display unit ” in line 3 of Claim 2 . “ a control unit ” in line 5 of Claim 2. “ a plurality of stacking portions ” in line 4 of Claim 3 . “ a distribution setting unit ” in line 5 of Claim 3. “ a distribution performing unit ” in line 7 of Claim 3. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 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) 1 , 3, 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Numata et al (US 2017/0358164 A1) . Regarding Claim 1, Numata discloses a paper sheet processing system , i.e., the banknote handling system as illustrated in figures 1-3, 6a and 6b, noting also banknote handling systems (301, 302), and as mentioned in paragraphs 30, 31, 36 and 72, for example, comprising: a paper sheet identification device , i.e., either of the banknote sorting/handling devices such as first banknote handling device (10) and second banknote handling device (110) with recognition unit s (12 , 112 ), as mentioned at paragraph s 32 and 36-38 and as illustrated in figure s 2 and 3 , that identifies paper sheets having been taken out from a paper sheet receiving device , i.e., first banknote handling apparatus (10), as mentioned in paragraph 30 and as illustrated in figure 1, noting the directional arrow from apparatus (10) to banknote bundles (201-203) or second banknote apparatus (110) , that performs predetermined processing on received paper sheets , i.e., interpreted as counting, collecting and sorting banknotes as mentioned in paragraph 29, for example ; and a paper sheet management device , i.e., first terminal (20) or control unit (22) as mentioned at paragraph 34 and as illustrated in figure 2, or second terminal (120) or control unit (122) as mentioned at paragraphs 39, 40 and 46-49 and as illustrated in figure 3, that is communicable with the paper sheet identification device ( 10, 110, 12, 112) , wherein the paper sheet management device (20, 22, 120, 122) includes a decision unit , i.e., considered implied/inherent as a piece of software that is part of the control units (120, 122), that decides strength information , i.e., interpreted as the recognition precision, which is set for high, medium or low, as mentioned in paragraph 70, noting, among other things, the last sentence, stating “[t] he change of the setting of the recognition precision includes, not only change of determination standards such as a threshold values or a template data, but also change of a setting about a transport control of a banknote such as making a distance between consecutive banknotes longer, reducing the transport speed of the banknotes, and the like to increase the recognition precision of banknotes ”, for example, based on model information specifying a model of the paper sheet receiving device , i.e., interpreted as any of first banknote handling apparatus (10), second banknote handling apparatus (110), as mentioned in paragraph 70, mentioning that “the standards for the recognition determination are set low”, omit, or maintain the standards, and a transmission unit , i.e., network (310), that transmits the decided strength information to the paper sheet identification device (12, 112) , and the paper sheet identification device (12, 112) includes a reception unit , i.e., interpreted as the opposite end of network (310), for example, that receives the strength information , noting further the data lines connecting the devices in systems (301) and (302) as illustrated in figure 6a, for example , a strength setting unit , i.e., interpreted as the operation/display unit (11, 21, 111, 120) as illustrated in figures 2 and 3 and as mentioned at paragraphs 37, 38 , 39, 64 and 69, for example, that sets an identification strength using the received strength information , and an identification unit , i.e., recognition unit (12, 112) , which is interpreted as the sensors/detectors that sense properties/characteristics of banknotes , as mentioned at paragraphs 32 and 36-38 and as illustrated in figures 2 and 3 , that identifies the paper sheets based on the set identification strength . See paragraphs 36-39 and 69-72, which state as follows. [0036] FIG. 3 is a block diagram of a configuration example of a second banknote handling system 302 installed in the cash collection center 2 . The second banknote handling apparatus 110 includes an operation/display unit 111 , a recognition unit 112 , a banknote handling unit 113 , and a control unit 114 . [0037] The operation/display unit 111 has a function to perform input of information necessary to perform various processes and/or settings, and to perform output and display of various pieces of information. The recognition unit 112 has a function to recognize a denomination, authenticity, fitness, and the like of a banknote. The banknote handling unit 113 has a function to feed into inside of the apparatus a large number of banknotes, one by one, placed on a hopper and transport the fed banknote via a transport path arranged inside the apparatus to the recognition unit 112 . Normal banknotes whose denomination and the like could be recognized by the recognition unit 112 are sorted and stacked in a corresponding stacker. Banknotes that cannot be recognized by the recognition unit 112 , banknotes recognized as counterfeit banknotes, and the like are discharged in a reject unit as rejected banknotes. A detailed explanation of the banknote handling performed in the second banknote handling apparatus 110 , whose external appearance is as shown in FIG. 1, having one hopper, one reject unit, and a plurality of stackers is known in the art and will be omitted. [0038] The control unit 114 has a function to control input and output of information by using the operation/display unit 111 , and to control the recognition unit 112 and the banknote handling unit 113 . Moreover, the control unit 114 has a function to output to the second terminal 120 a result of recognition and counting, serial numbers, information relating to the process of the banknotes, and the like obtained in the second banknote handling apparatus 110 by performing the banknote handling. [0039] The second terminal 120 connected to the second banknote handling apparatus 110 is constituted by, in this example, a computer device. The second terminal 120 includes an operation/display unit 121 , a control unit 122 , and a memory 123 . In the second terminal 120 , the control unit 122 stores in the memory 123 information such as the results of recognition and counting and the serial numbers of the banknotes input from the second banknote handling apparatus 110 . The control unit 122 manages a plurality of pieces of information. [0069] In the second banknote handling apparatus 110 , when performing a process to recognize the banknotes 204 taken out of the banknote container 210 and store recognized banknotes in the plurality of stackers separately according to their denomination, it is possible to automatically set the correspondence relation between the denominations and the stackers based on the banknote information acquired from the two-dimensional barcode 220 . The banknote information includes information to identify the denominations, the number of banknotes per denomination, the total number, and the like of the banknotes 204 targeted for handling. By using this information, the control unit 122 of the second banknote handling apparatus 110 automatically performs denomination assignment to the stackers. For example, if the number of banknotes is small, the denomination of these banknotes is assigned to one stacker, and if the number of the banknotes is large, the denomination of these banknotes is assigned to two stackers. For example, in the second banknote handling apparatus 110 , if a batch process is performed in which stacking of the subsequent banknotes is halted each time the banknotes of a predetermined number are stacked and the stacking of the banknotes is restarted after the stacked banknotes of the predetermined number are removed, a setting can be performed so that the banknotes of the denomination having a large number, whereby the number of times of removal thereof is large, are stacked in a stacker from which it is easy for an operator of the second banknote handling apparatus 110 to remove the stacked banknotes. Specifically, in the batch process, a setting can be performed so that the banknotes having a large number are stacked in a stacker that is nearer to an operator who operates the operation/display unit 121 and places the banknotes in the hopper, and the banknotes having small numbers are stacked in stackers that are away from the operator. Moreover, it can be set such that the control unit 122 of the second terminal 120 generates a plurality of patterns of the denomination assignments to the stackers and displays these patterns on the operation/display unit 121 , and causes the operator to select the desired pattern. For example, if there are a plurality of stackers, based on the denominations and the numbers of the banknotes to be handled, a transport distance of the banknotes from the hopper to each of the stackers, a transport speed, and the like, the control unit 122 estimates a processing time necessary for the handling to separately stacking all the banknotes put on the hopper in the stackers for each of the patterns. The control unit 122 displays on the operation/display unit 121 the patterns and the estimated processing time for each of the patterns and causes the operator to select a pattern. After confirming and considering the information displayed on the operation/display unit 121 , the operator can select, for example, a denomination assignment pattern to which he is accustomed to using, or can select a different denomination assignment pattern by taking into account the possibility of shortening of the processing time. [0070] In the second banknote handling apparatus 110 , when performing a process to recognize the banknotes 204 taken out of the banknote container 210 and store them in the different stackers separately according to the denomination, it is possible to set such that a recognition precision of the banknotes is automatically changed based on the banknote information acquired from the two-dimensional barcode 220 . Specifically, a setting is made so that information about a recognition performance of the first banknote handling apparatus 10, information about recognition results of the banknotes, and the like are included in the banknote information , and by using the information acquired from the banknote information, the recognition precision of the second banknote handling apparatus 110 is automatically set in the second banknote handling apparatus 110 . For example, if the first banknote handling apparatus 10 has the same recognition ability as that of the second banknote handling apparatus 110, because a banknote that was already recognized in the first banknote handling apparatus 10 is recognized again in the second banknote handling apparatus 110, the setting is automatically changed to reduce the recognition precision in the second banknote handling apparatus 110. That is, the standards for the recognition determination are set low. Moreover, for example, when handling a banknote in the second banknote handling apparatus 110 that was recognized as a genuine banknote in the first banknote handling apparatus 10, it is possible to set so that authentication is omitted. When doing so, for example, it is possible to set a condition so as not to reduce the recognition precision when a denomination and a serial number of a banknote were input manually as this banknote could not be recognized by the recognition unit 12 of the first banknote handling apparatus 10 . Moreover, for example, when a stain such as a scribble is detect ed on a banknote in the first banknote handling apparatus 10, the setting can be automatically changed to increase the recognition precision in the second banknote handling apparatus 110 to allow detect ion of the stain with a high precision . That is , the standards for the recognition determination are set high. The changing of the setting of the recognition precision is not limited to be performed per processing but can be performed per banknote. For example, a banknote whose information was input manually or on which a stain was detect ed in the first banknote handling apparatus 10 is identified based on its serial number read by the second banknote handling apparatus 110 , and the recognition precision of only such a banknote is increased as compared to the other banknotes . Moreover, for example, only when the serial number of the banknote acquired in the second banknote handling apparatus 110 is not included in the serial numbers acquired in the first banknote handling apparatus 10 , the setting is automatically changed to increase the recognition precision of the authenticity and the like, so that the recognition determination is performed with stricter standards than the standards for banknotes that have been already recognized in the first banknote handling apparatus 10 . Similarly, the setting can be automatically changed to reduce the recognition precision for a banknote that satisfies a predetermined condition. The change of the setting of the recognition precision includes, not only change of determination standards such as a threshold values or a template data, but also change of a setting about a transport control of a banknote such as making a distance between consecutive banknotes longer, reducing the transport speed of the banknotes, and the like to increase the recognition precision of banknotes . [0071] In the example shown in FIG. 1 in which the banknote information including the denominations and the serial numbers of all the banknotes 201 ˜ 203 in the deposit process in the shop 1 is output as the two-dimensional barcode 220 ; however, the method of sending the banknote information from the shop 1 to the cash collection center 2 is not limited to this method. FIGS. 6A and 6B depict other embodiments of sending the banknote information from the shop 1 to the cash collection center 2 . [0072] FIG. 6A depicts an example in which the first terminal 20 of the first banknote handling system 301 installed in the shop 1 and the second terminal 120 of the second banknote handling system 302 installed in the cash collection center 2 are connected each other with a network 310 , and the banknote information is transmitted as data via the network 310 . In this case, when carrying the banknote container 210 out from the shop 1 , a data number that is associated with the banknote information of the banknotes 201 ˜ 203 put in the banknote container 210 is generated, and a barcode 221 indicating this data number is printed by the barcode printer 30 . The first terminal 20 transmits the banknote information of the banknotes 201 ˜ 203 put in the banknote container 210 , in a state in which the data number is associated thereto, to the second terminal 120 . The barcode 221 attached to the banknote container 210 is read by the barcode reader 130 in the cash collection center 2 , and the banknote information associated with this data number is identified. Accordingly, the banknote handling can be performed in the second banknote handling system 302 as explained above. Emphasis provided. Regarding Claim 3, Numata discloses wherein the paper sheet identification device (10, 110) includes a plurality of stacking portions , as mentioned in paragraph 69 , a distribution setting unit , i.e., interpreted as operation/display unit (121) as mentioned in the second to last sentence of paragraph 69, stating “ control unit 122 displays on the operation/display unit 121 the patterns and the estimated processing time for each of the patterns and causes the operator to select a pattern ”, that sets any of the stacking portions as specified stacking portions , i.e., “the patterns” as mentioned in the last two sentences of paragraph 69 , and a distribution performing unit , i.e., interpreted as the banknote handling units (13, 113), that distributes specified paper sheets among the paper sheets to the specified stacking portions, and the decision unit of the paper sheet management device (20, 22, 120, 122) decides the strength information based on a distribution pattern that is a combination of the stacking portions set to be the specified stacking portions and the model information , as mentioned at paragraph 70, for example . Regarding Claim 5, see the rejection of Claim 5, above. Regarding Claim 7 , see the rejection of Claim 3 , above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim (s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata et al (US 2017/0358164 A1) in view of Matsuura (US 2009/0090660 A1) . Regarding Claim s 2 and 4 , Numata teaches the system as described above. Regarding Claim 2, Numata does not expressly teach wherein the paper sheet identification device includes a display unit that does not display the strength information in a first mode and displays the strength information in a second mode, and a control unit that is capable of maintaining the first mode in a period from receiving the strength information to starting identification of the paper sheets . Regarding Claim 2 , Numata does not expressly teach , but Matsuura teaches wherein the paper sheet identification device includes a display unit , i.e., display/operating section (4), as illustrated in figure 3, that does not display the strength information in a first mode , i.e., a counting mode or other modes , as mention in paragraph s 15 and 17 , for example, and displays the strength information , i.e., interpreted as bill characteristics information as illustrated in figure 3 as part of the discriminating/counting section (8), in a second mode, and a control unit , i.e ,. main body control section and/or display operating control section (45) of figure 3, that is capable of maintaining the first mode in a period from receiving the strength information to starting identification of the paper sheets , construed as a normal operation mode once the desired settings are completed . Regarding Claim 2, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the paper sheet identification device includes a display unit that does not display the strength information in a first mode and displays the strength information in a second mode, and a control unit that is capable of maintaining the first mode in a period from receiving the strength information to starting identification of the paper sheets , as taught by Matsuura, in Numata’s paper sheet processing system for the purpose of effectuating the setting of parameters and other features such as the strength/precision of the identification/recognition sensors. Regarding Claim 4, Numata teaches wherein the transmission unit (310) of the paper sheet management device (20, 22, 120, 122) transmits the distribution pattern and the strength information corresponding to the distribution pattern , as mentioned at paragraphs 69 and 70, the paper sheet identification device (10, 110) , includes a selection unit that makes the received distribution pattern selectable , and when the distribution pattern is selected, the identification strength according to the strength information corresponding to the distribution pattern is set automatically , as mentioned at paragraphs 69 and 70, for example. Regarding Claim 4, Numata does not express teach a selection unit that makes the received distribution pattern selectable . Regarding Claim 4, Numata does not express teach , but Matsuura teaches a selection unit , i.e., the arrow keys, accept keys (43L, 43R), left and right start/stop keys (42L, 42R) that makes the received distribution pattern selectable , as mentioned at paragraphs 17, 21 and 22 and as illustrated in figure 3, for example . Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata et al (US 2017/0358164 A1) in view of Jones et al (US 9 ,141,87 6 B 1) . Regarding Claim 6 , Numata teaches the system as described above. Regarding Claim 6 , Numata does not expressly teach a program causing a computer to execute each step according to claim 5 . Regarding Claim 6, Numata does not expressly teach , but Jones teaches a program , i.e., software, causing a computer , i.e., controller (150), as mentioned at col. 20, lines 38-65 and col. 55, lines 13-45, for example, to execute each step according to claim 5 , as taught by Numata . Regarding Claim 6 , before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a program causing a computer to execute each step according to claim 5 , as taught by Jones , in Num ata’s paper sheet processing system for the purpose of effectuating the solid state controllers to set parameters and other features such as the strength/precision of the identification/recognition sensors using common programing and software/hardware techniques . Conclusion Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner should there be any questions about this rejection or in an endeavor to explore potential amendments or potential allowable subject matter. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wakabayashi ‘423 is cited as teaching a paper sheet processing system (100) as illustrated in figure 1, and elicits model identification as well as serial number information as shown in figure 1. Butler ‘233 is cited as mentioning the use of OEM (original equipment manufacturer) operation parameters, etc., as mentioned at col. 111, line 58-col. 112, line 12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JEFFREY ALAN SHAPIRO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6943 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday generally between 8:30AM and 6:30PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Anita Y Coupe can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-3614 . 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. /JEFFREY A SHAPIRO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 March 19, 2026