RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
This communication is responsive to the amendment filed 13-May-2026 with respect to application 18/640,850 filed 19-April-2024.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 14 and 20, cancelled claims 2, 5-13, 17-19 and 21-23, and has added new claims 24-37.
Claims 1, 14, 20 and 24-37 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 14 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 USC §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 introduces: “….the user device;” [line 4] for which there is no proper antecedent, and which renders the limitation, and the claim, indefinite.
Claims 31-34 are rejected, at least because each depends from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 14, 24-27, 29-32, 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Wedig et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2011/0241877 A1), hereinafter Wedig, in view of Bruce et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2009/0281850 A1), hereinafter Bruce, and Mendelson (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2009/0138353 A).
Consider claim 1: An evacuation system, Wedig discloses an evacuation system [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1; Para. 0021], comprising:
a plurality of sensory nodes installed within a structure, wherein each of the plurality of sensory nodes is configured to detect an evacuation condition; the system comprising a plurality of sensory nodes (105, 110, 115, 120), the sensors of which are configured to detect an evacuation condition [Fig. 1; Para. 0022-0023];
a system server in communication with the plurality of sensory nodes; the system comprising one or more decision nodes (125, 130), each comprising a processor (330), which are configured to determine one or more evacuation routes, and are in communication with sensory nodes (typically through short-range communication networks (135) [Fig. 1, 3; Para. 0022, 0025-0026], and embodiments in which system functions are implemented with a remote server (700) in communication with the sensory nodes, and that the remote server may replace the decision nodes [Fig. 7; Para. 0069, 0100];
a user device configured to communicate with the system server, the user device comprising a processor and a memory comprising instructions that when executed by the processor, embodiments which include one or more user devices (710), which are computing devices, that may be a smartphone or cellphone, in communication with sensory nodes (705) and the system server (700) [Fig. 7; Para. 0100, 0103], cause the device to
determine a location of the user device,
receive information that indicates the existence of the evacuation condition to the user device; wherein, in various embodiments, a user device (710) may receive alerts from one or more sensory nodes (705), or from a system server (700) [Fig. 7; Para. 0100], and
determine an evacuation route from the location of the user device to a safe location; and
the instructions cause the processor to determine the evacuation route using sensor data stored in the memory of the user device, the sensor data comprising building information received from the system server prior to a loss of communication with the system server; and
wherein the instructions further cause the user device to update the evacuation route based on newly detected conditions while not in communication with the system server.
Wedig discloses that sensor and decision nodes may include location (such as GPS) sensors, or that location may be loaded into these devices from a cellphone [Para. 0030], suggesting that a user device comprises one or more sensors for determining location, but does not explicitly disclose this.
Wedig does not explicitly disclose: (a) that the user device comprises a processor and memory, (c) that a user device may determine an evacuation route, (d) that the user device receives and stores building information, or (e ) that the user device may dynamically update an evacuation route. These are known in analogous prior art, and for example:
Bruce discloses a situational awareness system, method and associated user terminal (14) [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1A, 1D, 1E; Para. 0008-0010]; and particularly: (a) that the user terminal comprises a processor and memory [Fig 1D; Para. 0042]; (b) that the user terminal includes a positioning sensor (56) and may determine its location [Fig. 1D; Para. 0043]; (c) that the user device may determine an evacuation route [Para. 0078]; (d) that the user terminal may have and/or have access to geographic databases and incident reports (building information) [Para. 0078]; and (e) the user terminal may include a dynamic routing tool (116) and evacuation route planning tool (118) allowing dynamic generation and updating of routes [Para. 0051, 0062, 0075-0076, 0078].
Neither Wedig nor Bruce specifically discloses downloading the building information from a server in advance. This is also known in analogous prior art, and for example:
Mendelson discloses a system and method for providing notification and emergency information to occupants of a building [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-4; Para. 0002, 0232-0235] and particularly that building information may be downloaded onto a user device, by user action on initial arrival at the building [Fig. 4; Para. 0284-0290].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention that user terminals may be used, singly or in a crowdsourced manner, to gather geographic and incident information, and use this information, along with its sensed location, to determine an evacuation route, and update the route based on new information, as taught by Bruce, and where the building information may be downloaded and stored on the user device on first arrival at the building, as taught by Mendelson, applied to an evacuation system and method as taught by Wedig, in order to allow the system to operate without use of, or need for continuous communication with a central server.
Consider claim 14: A method of evacuating a structure, Wedig discloses an evacuation system and method of operation [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1; Para. 0003, 0021], comprising:
receiving, by a system server, sensory data from a plurality of sensory nodes during a communication session; a plurality of sensory nodes (105, 110, 115, 120), the sensors of which are configured to detect an evacuation condition [Fig. 1, 4; Para. 0022-0023, 0027, 0047];
storing building information on the user device; wherein the user device may communicate with the system server to obtain various structure (building) and other information during setup and testing phases [Para. 0103];
detecting loss of communication between the user device and the system server; Wedig discloses that the system server may communicate with a user device, and that the server may emit a heartbeat signal, allowing communicating devices to detect loss of signal [Fig. 7; Para. 0084, 0103];
detecting by the user device, a location of the user device; wherein sensor and decision nodes may include location (such as GPS) sensors, or that location may be loaded into these devices from a cellphone [Para. 0030], and where a user device may be a cellphone;
determining, by the user device, an evacuation route using the stored building information when the user device is not in communication with the system server; and
updating, by the user device, the evacuation route based on locally detected conditions while the user device is not in communication with the system server;
Wedig discloses that sensor and decision nodes may include location (such as GPS) sensors, or that location may be loaded into these devices from a cellphone [Para. 0030], suggesting that a user device comprises one or more sensors for determining location, but does not explicitly disclose this.
Wedig does not explicitly disclose: (a) that the user device comprises a processor and memory, (c) that a user device may determine an evacuation route, (d) that the user device receives and stores building information, or (e ) that the user device may dynamically update an evacuation route. These are known in analogous prior art, and for example:
Bruce discloses a situational awareness system, method and associated user terminal (14) [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1A, 1D, 1E; Para. 0008-0010]; and particularly: (a) that the user terminal comprises a processor and memory [Fig 1D; Para. 0042]; (b) that the user terminal includes a positioning sensor (56) and may determine its location [Fig. 1D; Para. 0043]; (c) that the user device may determine an evacuation route [Para. 0078]; (d) that the user terminal may have and/or have access to geographic databases and incident reports (building information) [Para. 0078]; and (e) the user terminal may include a dynamic routing tool (116) and evacuation route planning tool (118) allowing dynamic generation and updating of routes [Para. 0051, 0062, 0075-0076, 0078].
Neither Wedig nor Bruce specifically discloses downloading the building information from a server in advance. This is also known in analogous prior art, and for example:
Mendelson discloses a system and method for providing notification and emergency information to occupants of a building [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-4; Para. 0002, 0232-0235] and particularly that building information may be downloaded onto a user device, by user action on initial arrival at the building [Fig. 4; Para. 0284-0290].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention that user terminals may be used, singly or in a crowdsourced manner, to gather geographic and incident information, and use this information, along with its sensed location, to determine an evacuation route, and update the route based on new information, as taught by Bruce, and where the building information may be downloaded and stored on the user device on first arrival at the building, as taught by Mendelson, applied to an evacuation system and method as taught by Wedig, in order to allow the system to operate without use of, or need for continuous communication with a central server.
Consider claim 20: An evacuation system, Wedig discloses an evacuation system [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1; Para. 0021], comprising:
a plurality of sensory nodes within a structure configured to detect an evacuation condition; the system comprising a plurality of sensory nodes (105, 110, 115, 120), the sensors of which are configured to detect an evacuation condition [Fig. 1; Para. 0022-0023];
a system server in communication with the plurality of sensory nodes; the system comprising one or more decision nodes (125, 130), each comprising a processor (330), which are configured to determine one or more evacuation routes, and are in communication with sensory nodes (typically through short-range communication networks (135) [Fig. 1, 3; Para. 0022, 0025-0026], and embodiments in which system functions are implemented with a remote server (700) in communication with the sensory nodes, and that the remote server may replace the decision nodes [Fig. 7; Para. 0069, 0100];
a user device configured to store building information received from the system server, the user device comprising a sensor which determines a location of the user device; embodiments which include one or more user devices (710), which may be a smartphone or cellphone, in communication with sensory nodes (705) and the system server (700) [Fig. 7; Para. 0100, 0103], and in various embodiments, a user device (710) may receive alerts from one or more sensory nodes (705), or from a system server (700) [Fig. 7; Para. 0100], and also, during setup, installation, and/or testing the system server and/or sensory modes may communicated with the user device to upload pictures, construction information and other information about the structure [Para. 0103];
the user device configured to determine an evacuation route based on stored building information;
wherein the user device is configured to determine an evacuation route independent of the system server when communication with the system server is unavailable;
the user device dynamically updates the evacuation route based on conditions detected by the user device while communication with the system server is unavailable.
Wedig discloses that sensor and decision nodes may include location (such as GPS) sensors, or that location may be loaded into these devices from a cellphone [Para. 0030], suggesting that a user device comprises one or more sensors for determining location, but does not explicitly disclose this.
Wedig does not explicitly disclose: (a) that the user device comprises a processor and memory, (c) that a user device may determine an evacuation route, (d) that the user device receives and stores building information, or (e ) that the user device may dynamically update an evacuation route. These are known in analogous prior art, and for example:
Bruce discloses a situational awareness system, method and associated user terminal (14) [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1A, 1D, 1E; Para. 0008-0010]; and particularly: (a) that the user terminal comprises a processor and memory [Fig 1D; Para. 0042]; (b) that the user terminal includes a positioning sensor (56) and may determine its location [Fig. 1D; Para. 0043]; (c) that the user device may determine an evacuation route [Para. 0078]; (d) that the user terminal may have and/or have access to geographic databases and incident reports (building information) [Para. 0078]; and (e) the user terminal may include a dynamic routing tool (116) and evacuation route planning tool (118) allowing dynamic generation and updating of routes [Para. 0051, 0062, 0075-0076, 0078].
Neither Wedig nor Bruce specifically discloses downloading the building information from a server in advance. This is also known in analogous prior art, and for example:
Mendelson discloses a system and method for providing notification and emergency information to occupants of a building [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-4; Para. 0002, 0232-0235] and particularly that building information may be downloaded onto a user device, by user action on initial arrival at the building [Fig. 4; Para. 0284-0290].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention that user terminals may be used, singly or in a crowdsourced manner, to gather geographic and incident information, and use this information, along with its sensed location, to determine an evacuation route, and update the route based on new information, as taught by Bruce, and where the building information may be downloaded and stored on the user device on first arrival at the building, as taught by Mendelson, applied to an evacuation system and method wherein the user device may communicate with the system server to obtain various structure (building) and other information during setup and testing phases as taught by Wedig, in order to allow the system to operate without use of, or need for, continuous communication with a central server.
Consider claim 24 and as applied to claim 1: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the building information comprises a floor plan of the structure.
Wedig discloses that stored building information may include maps and floor by floor blueprints of the building [Para. 0092-0093].
Bruce teaches that that the user terminal (12) may have (stored) and/or have access to geographic databases and incident reports (building information) separately from information stored on a system server (14) [Para. 0078]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that building information which a user terminal has, as taught by Bruce and applied to an evacuation system and method as taught by Wedig as modified by Bruce and Mendelson, would include floor plans, where such information is useful in generating an evacuation route.
Consider claim 25 and as applied to claim 1: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the building information comprises locations of exits and pathways within the structure.
Wedig discloses that stored building information may include pictures and views of the building which illustrate exits [Para. 0093].
Bruce teaches that that the user terminal (12) may have (stored) and/or have access to geographic databases and incident reports (building information) separately from information stored on a system server (14) [Para. 0078]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that building information which a user terminal has, as taught by Bruce and applied to an evacuation system and method as taught by Wedig as modified by Bruce and Mendelson, would include exit information, where such information is useful in generating an evacuation route.
Consider claim 26 and as applied to claim 1: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device determines the evacuation route without transmitting sensor data to the system server.
Wedig discloses embodiments in which one or more decision nodes (125, 130) may determine evacuation routes, the decision nodes in communication with sensory nodes (105, 110, 115, 120) using a mesh network [Fig. 1-3; Para. 0022-0029], that decision nodes may store building information [Para. 0043-0044], that in other embodiments decision node functions may be performed by a system server [Para. 0069], and specifically that sensor nodes may directly communicate with user devices [Fig. 7; Para. 0100].
Bruce similarly discloses that one or more user terminals may determine an emergency situation (act as sensory nodes) and may determine and or update an evacuation route, wherein the user terminals [Para. 0085-0078].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the artisan that these embodiments provide for direct collection of information, and route determination by a user device, and without requiring communication to, or from, a system server.
Consider claim 27 and as applied to claim 1: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device receives the building information during a prior communication session with the system server. Mendelson discloses that building information may be downloaded onto a user device, by user action on initial arrival at the building [Fig. 4; Para. 0284-0290].
Consider claim 29 and as applied to claim 1: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device continues updating the evacuation route until communication with the system server is restored. Bruce discloses that the route may be updated on a continuing basis, based on updated incident reports from other user terminals [Para. 0078] without requiring communication with a server.
Consider claim 30 and as applied to claim 1: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device determines the evacuation route based on both the stored building information and real-time sensor data.
Wedig discloses that evacuation routes may be determined based on sensor data, including occupancy information, and type, location and intensity of the evacuation condition (sensed parameters) and on building information (stored information) [Fig. 4; Para. 0025-0027, 0044, 0049].
Bruce discloses use of geographic data and sensed location data [Para. 0049, 0051, 0062, 0075-0076, 0078].
Consider claim 31 and as applied to claim 14: The method of claim 14, wherein the building information comprises a floor plan of the structure. This claim is rejected based on the same references, citations and analysis as for claim 24, and as applied to claim 14.
Consider claim 32 and as applied to claim 14: The method of claim 14, wherein determining the evacuation route comprises identifying a path to an exit stored in the building information. Wedig discloses that building information includes floor plans and pictures, including building windows and exits. [Par. 0093, 0049-0050].
Consider claim 35 and as applied to claim 20: The evacuation system of claim 20, wherein the stored building information includes structural layout data.
Wedig discloses that stored building information may include maps and floor by floor blueprints of the building (structural layout data) [Para. 0092-0093].
Bruce teaches that that the user terminal (12) may have (stored) and/or have access to geographic databases and incident reports (building information) separately from information stored on a system server (14) [Para. 0078].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that building information which a user terminal has, as taught by Bruce and applied to an evacuation system and method as taught by Wedig as modified by Bruce and Mendelson, would include structural layout information, such as floor plans, where such information is useful in generating an evacuation route.
Consider claim 36 and as applied to claim 20: The evacuation system of claim 20, wherein the user device determines the evacuation route using both stored data and real-time sensor input.
Wedig discloses that evacuation routes may be determined based on sensor data, including occupancy information, and type, location and intensity of the evacuation condition (sensed parameters) and on building information (stored information) [Fig. 4; Para. 0025-0027, 0044, 0049].
Bruce discloses use of geographic data and sensed location data [Para. 0049, 0051, 0062, 0075-0076, 0078].
Claims 28 and 33 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Wedig et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2011/0241877 A1), hereinafter Wedig, Bruce et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2009/0281850 A1), hereinafter Bruce, and Mendelson (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2009/0138353 A), and further in view of Johnson (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2010/0256903 A1).
Consider claim 28 and as applied to claim 1: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device modifies the evacuation route in response to a deviation of a user from the evacuation route.
Bruce discloses that an evacuation rout may be updated based on new field incident reports or other real time data [Para. 0008, 0010, 0012, 0014-0015], but Wedig, Bruce and Mendelson do not specifically disclose updating of an evacuation route, based on a user deviation from that route. This is known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Johnson discloses a vehicle telematics device and method for generating road routing information [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-2; Para. 0003, 0009], and particularly that a re-route request can be triggered by a vehicle occupant or automatically from the vehicle when a deviation from a planned route occurs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, that progress of a user along a planned-route may be monitored, and the route may be automatically updated if the user deviates from the planned route as taught by Johnson, and applied to an evacuation system and method as taught by Wedig as modified by Bruce and Mendelson, in order that instructions to the user with respect to the planned route correspond to the users real present position.
Consider claim 33 and as applied to claim 14: The method of claim 14, further comprising modifying the evacuation route when a user deviates from the evacuation route. This claim is rejected based on the same references, citations and analysis and for claim 28, and as applied to claim 14.
Claims 34 and 37 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Wedig et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2011/0241877 A1), hereinafter Wedig, Bruce et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2009/0281850 A1), hereinafter Bruce, and Mendelson (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2009/0138353 A), and further in view of Zhang et al. (United States Patent # US 8,150,465 B2), hereinafter Shang.
Consider claim 34 and as applied to claim 14: The method of claim 14, further comprising transmitting stored sensor data to the system server when communication is restored.
Wedig and Bruce discloses that a user device may communicate with one or more sensor nodes and determine an evacuation route, and where sensor nodes and decision nodes may store sensor data, even without connection to a system server.
Mendelson similarly discloses that user terminal may store information, and independently determine an evacuation path.
These references do not, however disclose that stored sensor data is communicated to the system server once communication is established (or re-established). This is known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Zhang discloses environmental monitoring using mobile devices and a network information server [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-4; Col. 1, 16-27; Col. 4, 49 to Col. 5, 43] and particularly that sensor data is collected by a sensor carrier which moves through an environment in which wireless LANs exist, and that collected (and stored) sensor data is communicated to a remote server at such time as the sensor carrier is within communication range of a wireless LAN [Fig1; Col. 6, 23-62].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention to store sensor data in a moving device, for downloading to a server at such times that the moving device is within communication range of a portal as taught by Zhang, and applied to an evacuation system and method as taught by Wedig as modified by Bruce and Mendelson, in order sensor data is collected and preserved even with connection to a remote server is lost, and thus simplifying support network infrastructure requirements.
Consider claim 37 and as applied to claim 20: The evacuation system of claim 20, wherein the user device resumes communication with the system server and transmits stored data upon reestablishing communication. This claim is rejected based on the same references, citations and analysis and for claim 34, and as applied to claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 13-May-2026 have been carefully and fully considered by the Examiner, and responses are provided as follow:
Consider Applicant remarks with respect to the non-statutory double patenting rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-14 and 17-24 over Wedig (US 11,995,966) (Parent) and Russell (US 2014/0143801 A1); and of claims 1, 2, 9, 11-4, 18 and 2-23 over Wedig (US 10,657,797 (Grandparent) and Russell [Remarks: (A) Page 6-7]: Applicant amendment of the claims obviate these rejections, and the rejections have been withdrawn.
Consider Applicant remarks with respect to rejections under 35 USC §103 of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, 20, 21 and 32 over Wedig (US 2011/0241877 A1), Ebdon (US 2011/0136463 A1) and Russell; claims 7 and 9 over Wedig, Ebdon, Russell and Hurtubidse (US 2010/0056886 A1); claims 12, 18 and 22 over Wedig, Ebdon, Russell and Nguyen (US 2009/0198374 A1) and claim 13 over Wedig, Ebdon, Russell and Hunter (US 2003/0069002 A1) [Remarks: (B) Page 7-9]:
Regarding independent claims 1, 14 and 20: Amendment of these claims overcomes the previous rejections, but these claims are now rejected under 35 USC §103 over Wedig, Bruce (US 2009/0281850 A1) and Mendelson (US 2009/0138353 A), based on the citations and analysis presented for each in this Office action; the new rejections necessitated by the amendments.
Regarding claims 2, 5-13, 17-19 and 21-23: Arguments with respect to these claims are moot; the claims have been cancelled by the Applicant.
Regarding claims 24-37: Argument’s with respect to these claims have been considered, but are also moot; the claims have not been previously examined.
Claims 24-27, 29-32, 35 and 36 are also rejected under 35 USC §103 over Wedig, Bruce and Mendelson, based on the citations and analysis presented for each in this Office action.
Claims 28 and 33 are rejected under 35 USC §103 over Wedig, Bruce, Mendelson and Johnson (US 2010/0256903 A1), based on the citations and analysis presented for each in this Office action.
Claims 34 and 37 are rejected under 35 USC §103 over Wedig, Bruce, Mendelson and Zhang (US 8,150,465 B2), based on the citations and analysis presented for each in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Yakali (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2013/0013192 A1) disclosing a navigation device and method providing a logging function.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to STEPHEN R BURGDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7328. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Friday at 11:00 AM to 8:00 PM EST/EDT.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571)272-3114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/STEPHEN R BURGDORF/ Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights