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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
An information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 28 March 2024 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority. It is noted, however, that applicant has NOT filed a certified copy of the application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 11 should be amended to recite “[[the]] a number of times” since such limitation is not previously recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 13 should be amended to recite “a periphery monitoring sensor” since such limitation is not previously recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 1-12 and 14-15 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “a comparison result by the road information comparator” as the association or lack thereof between such limitation and the previously recited limitation of “road information comparator to compare ...” is unclear, to the Examiner. In light of the dependent claims and to keep consistent claim language, Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to recite “a comparison result of the comparing outputted by the road information comparator”.
Claim 3 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “a comparison result” in line 3. It is unclear, to the Examiner, whether Applicant is referring to the same comparison result previously recited or not. Examiner suggests amending it to recite “[[a]] the comparison result”.
Claim 10 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “current first road information” as the association or lack thereof between such limitation and the previously recited limitation of “the first road information” in claims 1 and 10 is unclear, to the Examiner. See the 35 USC 112(b) rejection for claim 11 below in terms of Examiner’s suggestion for how to amend claim 10.
Claim 11 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “when the number of times that the first road information includes the abnormal value is equal to or greater than a threshold abnormality count set in advance, the first road information storage deletes the first road information stored in the first road information storage”. Claim 10 previously recites “when ... the first road information includes an abnormal value, the first road information storage does not store current first road information”. Therefore, it is unclear, to the Examiner, if once there is an abnormal value, it does not store it then how would it be able to delete it from the storage after a number of times of the abnormal value. In light of Applicant’s specification, Examiner understands claims 10 and 11 to be associated with (S103) and (S108) of Figure 3, Figure 5 and paragraphs [0032] and [0041]-[0044] of Applicant’s as-filed specification and therefore suggests amending claim 10 to recite “wherein, when latest first road information detected includes an abnormal value, determine a number of times that the latest first road information detected includes the abnormal value without storing the latest first road information detected” and amending claim 11 to recite “wherein, when the number of times that the latest first road information detected includes the abnormal value is equal to or greater than a threshold abnormality count set in advance, delete past stored first road information that is stored in the first road information storage and store the latest first information detected”.
Claim 12 is indefinite because the recited limitation “wherein the first road information storage deletes the first road information stored in a past when the first road information stored in the past for which a predetermined time or more has elapsed since the storage of the first road information” appears incomplete/incorrect. Examiner suggests amending claim 12 to recite “wherein the first road information storage deletes the first road information stored in a past when
Claim 14 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “current first road information” as the association or lack thereof between such limitation and the previously recited limitation of “the first road information” in claims 13 and 14 is unclear, to the Examiner. See the 35 USC 112(b) rejection for claim 11 above in terms of Examiner’s suggestion for how to amend claim 10 which can be applied to claim 14 as well.
Claim 15 recites “the threshold reliability”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claim.
Claims 2 and 4-9 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a device, claim 13 is directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1 and 13 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 13 as discussed here. Claim 13 recites:
A vehicle control method in which each of steps below is executed by a vehicle control device, the method comprising:
storing first road information detected using periphery monitoring sensor that monitors periphery of an own-vehicle;
acquiring second road information based on map information;
comparing the first road information and the second road information;
outputting a comparison result as matched when a road information deviation between the first road information and the second road information is equal to or less than a threshold deviation set in advance;
outputting the comparison result as non-matched when the road information deviation is larger than the threshold deviation set in advance; and
determining road information on a basis of the comparison result
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, acquiring ..., comparing ... and determining ... in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, stored, outputted, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle control method in which each of steps below is executed by a vehicle control device, the method comprising:
storing first road information detected using periphery monitoring sensor that monitors periphery of an own-vehicle;
acquiring second road information based on map information;
comparing the first road information and the second road information;
outputting a comparison result as matched when a road information deviation between the first road information and the second road information is equal to or less than a threshold deviation set in advance;
outputting the comparison result as non-matched when the road information deviation is larger than the threshold deviation set in advance; and
determining road information on a basis of the comparison result
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of storing ... and outputting(s) ..., the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the storing step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing information for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The outputting steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting data from some of the previous steps), and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claims 1 and 13 further recite the “A vehicle control device comprising at least one processor configured to implement: a first road information storage to ... using a periphery monitoring sensor that ...; a second road information acquisition circuitry to ...; a road information comparator to ...; and a road information determinator to ...” (claim 1) and “A vehicle control method in which each of steps below is executed by a vehicle control device, the method comprising: ... detected using periphery monitoring sensor ...” (claim 13) which merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 13 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of storing are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitations of outputting are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performances are well understood, routine, and conventional functions. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-15 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 and 14-15 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 13.
Therefore, claims 1-15 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kizumi (US20210248391A1) in view of Genki (JP2022054223A – translation provided by the Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Kizumi discloses a vehicle control device comprising at least one processor configured to implement (see at least abstract and Figure 10): a first road information acquisition circuitry to acquire first road information detected using a periphery monitoring sensor that monitors periphery of an own-vehicle (see at least [0062] and [0095]); a second road information acquisition circuitry to acquire second road information based on map information (see at least [0061] and [0095]); a road information comparator to compare the first road information and the second road information (see at least [0007], [0064], [0067], [0071] and [0096]); and a road information determinator to determine road information on a basis of a comparison result by the road information comparator (see at least [0071] and [0096]).
Kizumi does not explicitly disclose a first road information storage to store the first road information detected. However, Genki teaches a first road information storage to store the first road information detected (see at least [0007], [0013], [0015] and [0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kizumi to incorporate the teachings of Genki which teaches a first road information storage to store the first road information detected since they are both directed to road information acquiring system(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Genki would increase the reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 3, Kizumi as modified by Genki discloses wherein the road information comparator compares the first road information and the second road information, and outputs a comparison result as matched when a road information deviation between the first road information and the second road information is equal to or smaller than a threshold deviation set in advance, and outputs the comparison result as non-matched when the road information deviation is larger than the threshold deviation set in advance (see at least Kizumi [0064]-[0068]).
Regarding claim 4, Kizumi as modified by Genki discloses wherein the road information comparator makes an adjustment to the threshold deviation on a basis of a time during which the first road information is stored in the first road information storage (see at least Kizumi [0011], [0066], [0068], [0069], [0091] and [0092]).
Regarding claim 5, Kizumi as modified by Genki discloses further comprising a vehicle controller (see at least Figure 10), wherein, when the road information comparator outputs the comparison result as non-matched, the second road information is not used in the vehicle controller (see at least Kizumi [0071] and [0096]).
Regarding claim 6, Kizumi as modified by Genki discloses wherein, when the road information comparator outputs the comparison result as matched, the road information determinator corrects the second road information using the first road information (see at least Kizumi [0070], [0071] and [0096]).
Regarding claim 8, Kizumi fails to disclose wherein the first road information storage performs coordinate conversion on stored past first road information on a basis of vehicle movement information of the own-vehicle, and stores a combination of the past first road information on which the coordinate conversion is performed and current first road information. However, Genki teaches wherein the first road information storage performs coordinate conversion on stored past first road information on a basis of vehicle movement information of the own-vehicle (see at least [0027]-[0030]), and stores a combination of the past first road information on which the coordinate conversion is performed and current first road information (see at least [0016], [0026] and [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kizumi to incorporate the teachings of Genki which teaches wherein the first road information storage performs coordinate conversion on stored past first road information on a basis of vehicle movement information of the own-vehicle, and stores a combination of the past first road information on which the coordinate conversion is performed and current first road information since they are both directed to road information acquiring system(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Genki would increase the reliability and accuracy of the overall system.
Regarding claim 9, Kizumi fails to disclose wherein, when there is a portion where a road position overlaps between the past first road information on which the coordinate conversion is performed and the current first road information, the first road information storage preferentially stores the current first road information in terms of the overlapped road position. However, Genki teaches wherein, when there is a portion where a road position overlaps between the past first road information on which the coordinate conversion is performed and the current first road information, the first road information storage preferentially stores the current first road information in terms of the overlapped road position (see at least [0025], [0031] and [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kizumi to incorporate the teachings of Genki which teaches wherein, when there is a portion where a road position overlaps between the past first road information on which the coordinate conversion is performed and the current first road information, the first road information storage preferentially stores the current first road information in terms of the overlapped road position since they are both directed to road information acquiring system(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Genki would increase the accuracy and efficiency of the overall system.
Regarding claim 13, Kizumi discloses a vehicle control method in which each of steps below is executed by a vehicle control device, the method comprising (see at least abstract and Figure 10). The rest of claim 13 is commensurate in scope with claims 1 and 3. See above for rejection of claims 1 and 3.
Claims 2, 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kizumi (US20210248391A1) in view of Genki (JP2022054223A) in further view of Fujita (WO2020012209A1 – translation attached).
Regarding claim 2, Kizumi as modified by Genki does not explicitly disclose wherein, when comparing the first road information and the second road information, the road information comparator outputs the comparison result as non-comparable if a distance with which road positions of the first road information and the second road information overlap is smaller than a threshold distance set in advance. However, Fujita teaches wherein, when comparing the first road information and the second road information, the road information comparator outputs the comparison result as non-comparable if a distance with which road positions of the first road information and the second road information overlap is smaller than a threshold distance set in advance (see at least [0049] and [0084]-[0086]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kizumi as modified by Genki to incorporate the teachings of Fujita which teaches wherein, when comparing the first road information and the second road information, the road information comparator outputs the comparison result as non-comparable if a distance with which road positions of the first road information and the second road information overlap is smaller than a threshold distance set in advance since they are directed to road information acquiring system(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Fujita would increase the accuracy and efficiency of the overall system.
Regarding claim 7, Kizumi as modified by Genki does not explicitly disclose wherein, when second road information reliability indicating a degree of reliability of the second road information is lower than threshold reliability set in advance, the road information comparator outputs the comparison result as non-comparable. However, Fujita teaches wherein, when second road information reliability indicating a degree of reliability of the second road information is lower than threshold reliability set in advance, the road information comparator outputs the comparison result as non-comparable (see at least [0036], [0050], [0052], [0092] and [0093]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kizumi as modified by Genki to incorporate the teachings of Fujita which teaches wherein, when second road information reliability indicating a degree of reliability of the second road information is lower than threshold reliability set in advance, the road information comparator outputs the comparison result as non-comparable since they are directed to road information acquiring system(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Fujita would increase the accuracy and efficiency of the overall system.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is commensurate in scope with claim 7. See above for rejection of claim 7.
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kizumi (US20210248391A1) in view of Genki (JP2022054223A) in further view of Takeru (US20230236021A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kizumi as modified by Genki does not explicitly disclose wherein, when first road information reliability indicating a degree of reliability of the first road information is lower than threshold reliability set in advance or the first road information includes an abnormal value, the first road information storage does not store current first road information. However, Takeru teaches wherein, when first road information reliability indicating a degree of reliability of the first road information is lower than threshold reliability set in advance or the first road information includes an abnormal value, the first road information storage does not store current first road information (see at least [0134]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kizumi as modified by Genki to incorporate the teachings of Takeru which teaches wherein, when first road information reliability indicating a degree of reliability of the first road information is lower than threshold reliability set in advance or the first road information includes an abnormal value, the first road information storage does not store current first road information since they are directed to road information acquiring system(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Takeru would increase the efficiency of the overall system.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is commensurate in scope with claim 10. See above for rejection of claim 10.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kizumi (US20210248391A1) in view of Genki (JP2022054223A) in further view of Kwon (KR102329549B1 – translation attached).
Regarding claim 12, Kizumi as modified by Genki does not explicitly disclose wherein the first road information storage deletes the first road information stored in a past when the first road information stored in the past for which a predetermined time or more has elapsed since the storage of the first road information. However, Kwon teaches wherein the first road information storage deletes the first road information stored in a past when the first road information stored in the past for which a predetermined time or more has elapsed since the storage of the first road information (see at least [0012], [0024] and [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kizumi as modified by Genki to incorporate the teachings of Kwon which teaches wherein the first road information storage deletes the first road information stored in a past when the first road information stored in the past for which a predetermined time or more has elapsed since the storage of the first road information since they are directed to road information acquiring system(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Kwon would increase the efficiency of the overall system.
Prior Art Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Examiner’s suggestion above (in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection for claim 11) on how to amend claims 10 and 11 could be helpful while incorporating both claims into the independent claims).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30a.m. - 6:30p.m..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 3667