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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, and 19-20 are amended. Claims 4, 11, and 18 are canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US20140240089A1) in view of Vardharajan (US 20200062269 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chang teaches a shared space comprising:
a processor ([0014] and [0189]);
and a memory that stores computer-executable instructions and a customization client that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations ([0014] and [0189]) comprising:
obtaining identification information corresponding to a user associated with the shared space ([0146], personal devices connect; [0147-0148] and [0152], identification information transmitted),
determining, based at least in part on the identification information, if the user is a primary user of the shared space ([0147-0148] and [0152], information is then analyzed to identify if the information matches the owner, i.e. the primary user),
in response to determining that the user is not the primary user of the shared space, receiving a user profile associated with the user from a customization service system ([0151-0152], the preferred vehicle setting profile of the user is sent to the vehicle when they are guest or a passenger),
comparing the user profile associated with the user with a primary user profile associated with the primary user to determine if a setting of a component of the shared space from the user profile exceeds a setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile ([0146] and [0154], the settings of the received user profile are compared with the settings of the primary user, i.e. owner rules);
and instructing a control unit of the shared space to apply the user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the user profile ([0154-0155]),
wherein applying the user profile to the shared space comprises adjusting at least the component of the shared space based on the setting from the user profile ([0155], exemplary characteristic is the temperature of the vehicle).
Although Chang does teach determining that the setting of the component of the shared space from the user profile exceeds the setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile ([0154, settings are determined to not comply with the rules set by the primary user profile, i.e. the owner rules), it does not teach that the operations further comprise, in response to determining that the setting of the component of the shared space from the user profile exceeds the setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile, determining whether the user is a member of a user exception group, and that the user profile is applied to the shared space in response to determining that the user is a member of the user exception group.
In the same field of endeavor, Vardharajan teaches a system of applying vehicle setting profiles to vehicle in situations of conflicting settings, wherein operations comprise:
in response to determining that the setting of the component of the shared space from the user profile exceeds the setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile, determining whether the user is a member of a user exception group ([0128], if multiple user settings are present that would create conflicting setting privileges, the highest priority value is determined),
and applying the settings of the user in response to determining that the user is a member of the user exception group ([0006] and [0128], the user who is part of the exception group, i.e. of the highest priority, has their vehicle functionality settings applied to the vehicle).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify Chang with the user priority values of Vardharajan, thereby applying a user profile’s settings to a vehicle when said settings conflict with the owner’s preset settings if the user profile is assigned to an exclusion group via a sufficiently high priority level. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make this modification to Chang based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow certain users to be able to overrule the owner of a vehicle. This would enable an exception group to retain their own control over a vehicle’s settings, such as parents of teenagers who own vehicles, mentors of new employees who are assigned a work vehicle, etc.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Chang teaches wherein the operations further comprise in response to determining that the user is the primary user of the shared space, providing the primary user profile associated with the primary user to the control unit of the shared space to customize the shared space based on the primary user profile ([0146-0147], owner information saved in the vehicle and recognized by the system; [0153], owner setting profile, i.e. primary user profile, is stored and retrieved by the system; [0154-0155], settings of the vehicle are set according to the owner’s settings).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Chang teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
in response to determining that the user profile does not exceed the primary user profile, instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the user profile ([0154-0155], the settings that do not exceed the owner’s setting rules are not discarded or adjusted, and are applied subsequently).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Chang teaches wherein instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the user profile comprises instructing, in response to determining that the user is not a member of the user exception group, the control unit of the shared space to apply portions of the user profile that do not exceed the primary user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space ([0153-0155]), settings that exceed the owner’s defined rules of a vehicle are removed, then the remaining settings are applied to the vehicle).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Chang teaches wherein the customization service system comprises a profile aggregator that generates the user profile based on user data received from a plurality of data sources ([0220-0221], the user data for a user’s personal settings as received in order to implement the invention is received from the storage of the system itself and the smartphone of the user).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Although Chang teaches that the primary user profile is treated as the default for determining settings of the vehicle ([0139], “default vehicle settings defined by the owner”), it does not teach determining whether the user remains associated with the shared space; and in response to determining that the user does not remain associated with the shared space, instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the primary user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the primary user profile.
In the same field of endeavor, Vardharajan teaches a system performing operations that comprise:
determining whether the user remains associated with the shared space ([0043], determines if the user has exited the vehicle);
and in response to determining that the user does not remain associated with the shared space, instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the primary user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the primary user profile ([0043], settings of the shared space are reapplied based on the users remaining in the vehicle).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to incorporate this teaching into the invention of Chang to reapply settings after users leave the vehicle. Further, as the settings of the primary user profile of Chang are treated as the default settings, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that when the settings of the shared space are analyzed after all passengers leave the vehicle, the settings are restored to the default values of the primary user profile.
As Vardharajan is analogous to the art of customizing vehicle settings based on user preferences, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the system of Chang by applying new settings for the vehicle after each vehicle occupant departs based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure the settings of the vehicle actively reflect the preferences of the occupants of said vehicle, and when there are no occupants, that the settings of the vehicle reflect the default settings as defined by the owner.
Regarding claim 8, Chang teaches a method comprising:
obtaining, by a shared space comprising a processor executing a customization client, identification information corresponding to a user associated with the shared space ([0146], personal devices connect; [0147-0148] and [0152], identification information transmitted),
determining, by the shared space, based at least in part on the identification information, if the user is a primary user of the shared space ([0147-0148] and [0152], information is then analyzed to identify if the information matches the owner, i.e. the primary user),
in response to determining that the user is not the primary user of the shared space, receiving, by the shared space, a user profile associated with the user from a customization service system ([0151-0152], the preferred vehicle setting profile of the user is sent to the vehicle when they are guest or a passenger),
comparing, by the shared space, the user profile associated with the user with a primary user profile associated with the primary user to determine if a setting of a component of the shared space from the user profile exceeds a setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile ([0146] and [0154], the settings of the received user profile are compared with the settings of the primary user, i.e. owner rules);
and instructing, by the shared space, a control unit of the shared space to apply the user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the user profile ([0154-0155]),
wherein applying the user profile to the shared space comprises adjusting at least the component of the shared space based on the user profile ([0155], exemplary characteristic is the temperature of the vehicle).
Although Chang does teach determining that the setting of the component of the shared space from the user profile exceeds the setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile ([0154, settings are determined to not comply with the rules set by the primary user profile, i.e. the owner rules), it does not teach that the operations further comprise, in response to determining that the setting of the component of the shared space from the user profile exceeds the setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile, determining, by the shared space, whether the user is a member of a user exception group, and that the user profile is applied to the shared space in response to determining that the user is a member of the user exception group.
In the same field of endeavor, Vardharajan teaches a method of applying vehicle setting profiles to vehicle in situations of conflicting settings, wherein the method comprises:
in response to determining that the setting of the component of the shared space from the user profile exceeds the setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile, determining, by the shared space, whether the user is a member of a user exception group ([0128], if multiple user settings are present that would create conflicting setting privileges, the highest priority value is determined),
and applying the settings of the user in response to determining that the user is a member of the user exception group ([0006] and [0128], the user who is part of the exception group, i.e. of the highest priority, has their vehicle functionality settings applied to the vehicle).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify Chang with the user priority values of Vardharajan, thereby applying a user profile’s settings to a vehicle when said settings conflict with the owner’s preset settings if the user profile is assigned to an exclusion group via a sufficiently high priority level. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make this modification to Chang based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow certain users to be able to overrule the owner of a vehicle. This would enable an exception group to retain their own control over a vehicle’s settings, such as parents of teenagers who own vehicles, mentors of new employees who are assigned a work vehicle, etc.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art remains as applied in claim 8. Chang teaches the method further comprising in response to determining that the user is the primary user of the shared space, providing the primary user profile associated with the primary user to the control unit of the shared space to customize the shared space based on the primary user profile ([0146-0147], owner information saved in the vehicle and recognized by the system; [0153], owner setting profile, i.e. primary user profile, is stored and retrieved by the system; [0154-0155], settings of the vehicle are set according to the owner’s settings).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art remains as applied in claim 8. Chang teaches wherein the method further comprises:
in response to determining that the user profile does not exceed the primary user profile, instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the user profile ([0154-0155], the settings that do not exceed the owner’s setting rules are not discarded or adjusted, and are applied subsequently).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art remains as applied in claim 8. Chang teaches wherein instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the user profile comprises instructing, in response to determining that the user is not a member of the user exception group, the control unit of the shared space to apply portions of the user profile that do not exceed the primary user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space ([0153-0155]), settings that exceed the owner’s defined rules of a vehicle are removed, then the remaining settings are applied to the vehicle).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art remains as applied in claim 8. Chang teaches wherein the customization service system comprises a profile aggregator that generates the user profile based on user data received from a plurality of data sources ([0220-0221], the user data for a user’s personal settings as received in order to implement the invention is received from the storage of the system itself and the smartphone of the user).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art remains as applied in claim 8. Although Chang teaches that the primary user profile is treated as the default for determining settings of the vehicle ([0139], “default vehicle settings defined by the owner”), it does not teach determining whether the user remains associated with the shared space; and in response to determining that the user does not remain associated with the shared space, instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the primary user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the primary user profile.
In the same field of endeavor, Vardharajan teaches a method that comprises:
determining whether the user remains associated with the shared space ([0043], determines if the user has exited the vehicle);
and in response to determining that the user does not remain associated with the shared space, instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the primary user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the primary user profile ([0043], settings of the shared space are reapplied based on the users remaining in the vehicle).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to incorporate this teaching into the invention of Chang to reapply settings after users leave the vehicle. Further, as the settings of the primary user profile of Chang are treated as the default settings, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that when the settings of the shared space are analyzed after all passengers leave the vehicle, the settings are restored to the default values of the primary user profile.
As Vardharajan is analogous to the art of customizing vehicle settings based on user preferences, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the method of Chang by applying new settings for the vehicle after each vehicle occupant departs based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure the settings of the vehicle actively reflect the preferences of the occupants of said vehicle, and when there are no occupants, that the settings of the vehicle reflect the default settings as defined by the owner.
Regarding claim 15, Chang teaches a computer storage medium having computer-executable instructions comprising a customization client stored thereon that, when executed by a processor of a shared space, cause the processor to perform operations ([0014] and [0189]) comprising:
obtaining identification information corresponding to a user associated with the shared space ([0146], personal devices connect; [0147-0148] and [0152], identification information transmitted),
determining, based at least in part on the identification information, if the user is a primary user of the shared space ([0147-0148] and [0152], information is then analyzed to identify if the information matches the owner, i.e. the primary user),
in response to determining that the user is not the primary user of the shared space, receiving a user profile associated with the user from a customization service system ([0151-0152], the preferred vehicle setting profile of the user is sent to the vehicle when they are guest or a passenger),
comparing the user profile associated with the user with a primary user profile associated with the primary user to determine if a setting of a component of the shared space from the user profile exceeds a setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile ([0146] and [0154], the settings of the received user profile are compared with the settings of the primary user, i.e. owner rules);
and instructing a control unit of the shared space to apply the user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the user profile ([0154-0155]),
wherein applying the user profile to the shared space comprises adjusting at least the component of the shared space based on the user profile ([0155], exemplary characteristic is the temperature of the vehicle).
Although Chang does teach determining that the setting of the component of the shared space from the user profile exceeds the setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile ([0154, settings are determined to not comply with the rules set by the primary user profile, i.e. the owner rules), it does not teach that the operations further comprise, in response to determining that the setting of the component of the shared space from the user profile exceeds the setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile, determining whether the user is a member of a user exception group, and that the user profile is applied to the shared space in response to determining that the user is a member of the user exception group.
In the same field of endeavor, Vardharajan teaches a system performing operations of applying vehicle setting profiles to vehicle in situations of conflicting settings, wherein the operations comprise:
in response to determining that the setting of the component of the shared space from the user profile exceeds the setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile, determining, by the shared space, whether the user is a member of a user exception group ([0128], if multiple user settings are present that would create conflicting setting privileges, the highest priority value is determined),
and applying the settings of the user in response to determining that the user is a member of the user exception group ([0006] and [0128], the user who is part of the exception group, i.e. of the highest priority, has their vehicle functionality settings applied to the vehicle).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify Chang with the user priority values of Vardharajan, thereby applying a user profile’s settings to a vehicle when said settings conflict with the owner’s preset settings if the user profile is assigned to an exclusion group via a sufficiently high priority level. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make this modification to Chang based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow certain users to be able to overrule the owner of a vehicle. This would enable an exception group to retain their own control over a vehicle’s settings, such as parents of teenagers who own vehicles, mentors of new employees who are assigned a work vehicle, etc.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art remains as applied in claim 15. Chang teaches wherein the operations further comprise in response to determining that the user is the primary user of the shared space, providing the primary user profile associated with the primary user to the control unit of the shared space to customize the shared space based on the primary user profile ([0146-0147], owner information saved in the vehicle and recognized by the system; [0153], owner setting profile, i.e. primary user profile, is stored and retrieved by the system; [0154-0155], settings of the vehicle are set according to the owner’s settings).
Regarding claim 17, the prior art remains as applied in claim 15. Chang teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
in response to determining that the user profile does not exceed the primary user profile, instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the user profile ([0154-0155], the settings that do not exceed the owner’s setting rules are not discarded or adjusted, and are applied subsequently).
Regarding claim 19, the prior art remains as applied in claim 15. Chang teaches wherein instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the user profile comprises instructing, in response to determining that the user is not a member of the user exception group, the control unit of the shared space to apply portions of the user profile that do not exceed the primary user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space ([0153-0155]), settings that exceed the owner’s defined rules of a vehicle are removed, then the remaining settings are applied to the vehicle).
Regarding claim 20, the prior art remains as applied in claim 15. Although Chang teaches that the primary user profile is treated as the default for determining settings of the vehicle ([0139], “default vehicle settings defined by the owner”), it does not teach determining whether the user remains associated with the shared space; and in response to determining that the user does not remain associated with the shared space, instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the primary user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the primary user profile.
In the same field of endeavor, Vardharajan teaches a system performing operations that comprise:
determining whether the user remains associated with the shared space ([0043], determines if the user has exited the vehicle);
and in response to determining that the user does not remain associated with the shared space, instructing the control unit of the shared space to apply the primary user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the primary user profile ([0043], settings of the shared space are reapplied based on the users remaining in the vehicle).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to incorporate this teaching into the invention of Chang to reapply settings after users leave the vehicle. Further, as the settings of the primary user profile of Chang are treated as the default settings, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan that when the settings of the shared space are analyzed after all passengers leave the vehicle, the settings are restored to the default values of the primary user profile.
As Vardharajan is analogous to the art of customizing vehicle settings based on user preferences, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the system of Chang by applying new settings for the vehicle after each vehicle occupant departs based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure the settings of the vehicle actively reflect the preferences of the occupants of said vehicle, and when there are no occupants, that the settings of the vehicle reflect the default settings as defined by the owner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the previously given objections of claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 are persuasive. As a result, the objections are withdrawn from the presently filed Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the previously given rejections under 35 USC § 101 of claims 1 and 15 are persuasive. As a result, these rejections are withdrawn from the presently filed Office Action.
Regarding applicant’s arguments over the previously given rejections under 35 USC § 102(b), applicant contends that “Chang does not teach, suggest, or describe in response to determining that the setting of the component of the shared space from the user profile exceeds the setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile, determining whether the user is a member of a user exception group; and in response to determining that the user is a member of the user exception group, instructing a control unit of the shared space to apply the user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the user profile, wherein applying the user profile to the shared space comprises adjusting at least the component of the shared space based on the setting from the user profile" as part of the amended limitations to claim 1. The examiner notes that Chang does teach “determining that the setting of the component of the shared space from the user profile exceeds the setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile” as Chang compares the settings of a user profile to the saved primary user profile settings, i.e. owner rules, to determine if the user’s settings conflict with the owner rules (see para. 27 of the previous Nonfinal Office Action, citing [0153-0155] of Chang). Chang also teaches “instructing a control unit of the shared space to apply the user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the user profile, wherein applying the user profile to the shared space comprises adjusting at least the component of the shared space based on the setting from the user profile” as Chang adjust the settings of the vehicle based on the received settings from the user profile (see para. 9 of the previous Nonfinal Office Action, citing [0155] of Chang). However, the examiner agrees that Chang does not teach the limitation italicized above as this limitation was apart of the original claim 4 of the previously filed claims, and has now been added to the limitations of claim 1 as part of the filed amendment. As a result, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) has been withdrawn.
Regarding applicant’s arguments over a possible combination of Chang and Vardharajan, applicant contends that “Vardharajan does not teach, suggest, or describe in response to determining that the setting of the component of the shared space from the user profile exceeds the setting of the component of the shared space from the primary user profile, determining whether the user is a member of a user exception group; and in response to determining that the user is a member of the user exception group, instructing a control unit of the shared space to apply the user profile to the shared space to customize the shared space based on the user profile, wherein applying the user profile to the shared space comprises adjusting at least the component of the shared space based on the setting from the user profile”. The examiner disagrees. As stated in the previous paragraph, Chang teaches the majority of the amended limitations added to claim 1, meaning that Vardharajan would only be relied upon to teach “determining whether the user is a member of a user exception group; and in response to determining that the user is a member of the user exception group”. It is noted that the term “user exception group” has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. To this end, Vardharajan teaches a system for applying user vehicle settings to a vehicle. When the settings of multiple user profiles are detected so as to potentially create a setting conflict, Vardharajan teaches “determining whether the user is a member of a user exception group”, where a user exception group has been interpreted to be a sufficient user priority so that the user’s settings override any other settings and are applied to the vehicle, and teaches applying these settings of the user “in response to determining that the user is a member of the user exception group” (see para. 24 of the previous Nonfinal Office Action, citing [0006] and [0128] of Vardharajan). Given the motivation and rationale for combination previously described, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Chang with the teachings of Vardharajan (see paras. 25 and 26 of the previous Nonfinal Office Action).
Therefore, a new rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103 has been given for claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 in the presently filed Office Action. This new rejection was necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Chan et al. (US 20230106867 A1)
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R. BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK R BREWER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/JONATHAN M DAGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663