DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's response to restriction filed on 29 January 2026. Currently, claims 12-17, 25-31 are pending. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 12-17, 25-31 in the reply filed on 29 January 2026 is acknowledged.
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 12-17, 25-31 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (method and system). Claims 12-17, 25-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 12 and 25 recite the abstract idea of receiving pre-processed data from a plurality of data sources, the pre-processed data comprising first pre-processed data and second pre-processed data, wherein the first pre-processed data from a first data source is in a first data format, and the second pre-processed data from a second data source is in a second data format different from the first data format and storing, from the pre-processed data, processed data in a standardized format, the processed data comprising: customer data corresponding to terms of current agreements of customers and hypothetical incentive data comprising one or more Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) incentives and creating, with the customer data and the hypothetical incentive data, a potential customer pool comprising one or more customers for which a replacement vehicle and a replacement agreement has terms satisfy a threshold relative to terms of a current vehicle and current agreement and generating a plurality of alerts comprising first customers in the potential customer pool, a make and model of the first customers' current vehicles, and a model year of the first customers' current vehicles so that each user has access to up-to-date OEM incentives. The claims are directed to a type of identifying incentives for customers based on customer agreements and hypothetical manufacturer incentives. Under prong 1 of Step 2A, these claims are considered abstract because the claims are certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions such as sales and marketing and business relations). Applicant’s claims are organizing human activity because including commercial interactions because the claims show commercial interactions such as customer agreements and incentive data and that commercial activity (human activity) is organized by generating alerts based on that data. Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and any additional elements individually or in combination such as a system comprising: a computer readable storage medium comprising program instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the program instructions and automatically generating a plurality of alerts and causing presentation, in a graphical user interface, of the plurality of alerts to users over a computer network in real time, so that each user has immediate access to up-to-date OEM incentives) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply 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 claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. These limitations at best are merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as a system comprising: a computer readable storage medium comprising program instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the program instructions and automatically generating a plurality of alerts and causing presentation, in a graphical user interface, of the plurality of alerts to users over a computer network in real time, so that each user has immediate access to up-to-date OEM incentives (as evidenced by para [0099], [0155], [0169], [0174]-[0187], [0197]-[0200], [0227], [0234]-[0236] of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field. Dependent claims 13-17 also do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself by further showing wherein creating the potential customer pool further comprises: using a primary processing node, dividing the customer data and the hypothetical incentive data into a plurality of data segments, and distributing each of the plurality of data segments to respective interim processing nodes and determining a mileage value associated with a vehicle from the first customers' current vehicles and determining a priority indicator for an alert from the plurality of alerts, wherein determining the priority indicator comprises determining that the mileage value satisfies a threshold and determining a date associated with a current agreement from the customer data and determining a priority indicator for an alert from the plurality of alerts, wherein determining the priority indicator comprises determining that the date satisfies a threshold and determining a first payment value associated with a current agreement from the customer data and determining a second payment value associated with a replacement agreement and a replacement vehicle for a customer from the potential customer pool; and determining a priority indicator for an alert from the plurality of alerts wherein determining the priority indicator comprises determining that a difference between the first payment value and the second payment value satisfies a threshold and determining a mileage value associated with a particular vehicle from the first customers' current vehicles and determining a date associated with a current agreement for the particular vehicle from the customer data and determining a priority indicator for an alert from the plurality of alerts based at least in part on (i) the mileage value and (ii) the date. Dependent claims 13-17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as a determining that a resource utilization of each of the interim processing nodes exceeds a resource threshold and based on determining that the resource utilization of each of the interim processing nodes exceeds the resource threshold, dividing a first data segment of the plurality of data segments into a first data subsegment and a second data subsegment, and distributing the first data subsegment and the second data subsegment to a respective first secondary processing node or a second secondary processing node and processing, with the respective first secondary processing node or the second secondary processing node, each of the first data subsegment and the second data subsegment in parallel using the customer data and the hypothetical incentive data to create the potential customer pool and wherein the graphical user interface comprises the priority indicator (as evidenced by para [0099], [0155], [0169], [0174]-[0187], [0197]-[0200], [0227], [0234]-[0236] of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field.
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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colson et al. (US 2010/0217616 A1) (hereinafter Colson).
Claims 12 and 25:
Colson,as shown, discloses the following limitations of claims 12 and 25:
A method (and corresponding system – see para [0018], showing equivalent computing functionality and components) comprising: receiving pre-processed data from a plurality of data sources, the pre-processed data comprising first pre-processed data and second pre-processed data, wherein the first pre-processed data from a first data source is in a first data format, and the second pre-processed data from a second data source is in a second data format different from the first data format (see para [0072]-[0074] and Fig. 4, showing ,multiple data sources where the data is processed into different formats such as maps and customer demographic data and communicated with an internal SQL database);
storing, from the pre-processed data, processed data in a standardized format (see para [0074], showing data stored in an internal SQL database), the processed data comprising: (i) customer data corresponding to terms of current agreements of customers (see para [0127]-[0128], "At Event 1004, input(s) are received, typically at the same predetermined UI associated with Event 1102, which selects one or more vehicle type parameters for the vehicle currently owned/leased by the prospective customers. The current vehicle type parameters may include, but are not limited to, make, model, year, model number, body type and the like. By selecting one or more current vehicle type parameters the prospective customer search is limited to those customers currently under a financial obligation, e.g., a loan or a lease, associated with the selected type of vehicle. For example, if the user/dealer selects Make--Honda, Model--Accord and Year--2006, the prospective customer search is limited to those prospective customers currently having a financial obligation associated with a 2006 Honda Accord. At Event 1006, input(s) are received, typically at the same predetermined UI associated with Events 1002 and 1004, that selects one or more current or ongoing financial obligation parameters. Financial obligation parameters may include, but are not limited to, a minimum and/or maximum finance rate, a minimum and/or maximum monthly payment amount, the year the financial obligation started, the year the financial obligation is due to end, a minimum payment term, a maximum payment term, a minimum money factor, a maximum money factor and the salesperson associated with the previous vehicle transaction. In this regard, by selecting one or more financial obligation parameters the prospective customer search is limited to those customers currently under a financial obligation meeting the selected financial obligation criteria. It should be noted that in certain embodiments, only Event 1004 or Event 1006 needs to occur. In other words, the user/dealer may only limit the search of prospective customers based on vehicle type or current financial obligation parameters, as opposed to limiting the search for prospective customers based on both vehicle type and current financial obligation parameters.") and (ii) hypothetical incentive data comprising one or more Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) incentives (see para [0089], "The UI 200 also includes proposed retail/sales transaction variable parameters 228. The proposed transaction parameters 228 include sales price field 230 to provide for the user/dealer to input a desired sale price, finance/interest rate field 232 to provide for the user/dealer to input a current vehicle program interest rate, term field 234 to provide for the user/dealer to input a current vehicle program term, a minimum profit field 236 that allows for the user/dealer to input a desired profit amount on the sale of the proposed vehicle and a manufacturer incentive field 238 that allows the user/dealer to input the vehicle incentive program currently being offered.");
creating, with the customer data and the hypothetical incentive data, a potential customer pool comprising one or more customers for which a replacement vehicle and a replacement agreement has terms satisfy a threshold relative to terms of a current vehicle and current agreement (see para [0129], "At Event 1008, an input is received to search the selected database for prospective customers based on the selected vehicle type parameters and/or selected previous financial obligation parameters. At Event 1010, based on the input at Event 1008, a determination is made as to which customers match or meet the selected vehicle type criteria and/or selected previous financial obligation parameters. Those customers that meet or match the selected vehicle type criteria and/or selected previous financial obligation parameters form a group of prospective customers that may be targeted for customized marketing of a vehicle proposal. At optional Event 1012, a listing of the customers that match or meet the selected vehicle type criteria and/or selected previous financial obligation parameters may be displayed. An example of the formatting of a customer listing panel is shown and described in relation to FIG. 6.");
automatically generating a plurality of alerts comprising first customers in the potential customer pool, a make and model of the first customers' current vehicles, and a model year of the first customers' current vehicles (see para [0127], " At Event 1004, input(s) are received, typically at the same predetermined UI associated with Event 1102, which selects one or more vehicle type parameters for the vehicle currently owned/leased by the prospective customers. The current vehicle type parameters may include, but are not limited to, make, model, year, model number, body type and the like. By selecting one or more current vehicle type parameters the prospective customer search is limited to those customers currently under a financial obligation, e.g., a loan or a lease, associated with the selected type of vehicle. For example, if the user/dealer selects Make--Honda, Model--Accord and Year--2006, the prospective customer search is limited to those prospective customers currently having a financial obligation associated with a 2006 Honda Accord." and see para [0135], "At Event 1026, a vehicle proposal is determined for each of prospective customers. The flow diagram 1100 of FIG. 15, discussed infra., describes an exemplary vehicle sales proposal determination process and the flow diagram 1200 of FIG. 16, discussed infra., describes an exemplary vehicle lease proposal determination process. At Event 1028, based on the determination of vehicle proposals, vehicle proposal reports are generated for each of the prospective customers. In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, the vehicle proposal reports may be automatically electronically communicated to designated individuals/salespeople within the sales company. In addition, the system may provide for automatically generating and electronically communicating, via e-mail, text message or the like the proposed offer to each of the prospective customers that have an address or number associated with an electronic delivery mechanism. In other embodiments, the system may provide for generating prospective customer letters, through use of a letter template, that include the proposal and that are subsequently communicated to the prospective customer via postal service or the like." and Fig. 10); and
causing presentation, in a graphical user interface, of the plurality of alerts to users over a computer network in real time (see para [0052], "Thus, the network 36 communication link between the server/computing device 12 that includes the customer marketing module 20 and the database server 22 may be a local network, an external network, such as the Internet or a combination of a local network and an external network. To facilitate the exchange of data between the system and the internal databases, the system may be in real-time connection with such databases to insure up-to-date data or, alternatively, the system may periodically upload data from such databases." and see para [0135], where it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an email would be accessed and presented via a graphical user interface), so that each user has immediate access to up-to-date OEM incentives (Examiner notes this language is considered intended use and thus does not carry patentable weight).
Claims 14-17, 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colson et al. (US 2010/0217616 A1) (hereinafter Colson), as applied above, and further in view of Hankey et al. (US 2008/0183616 A1) (hereinafter Hankey).
Claims 14 and 27:
Further, Colson discloses the following limitations:
determining a mileage value associated with a vehicle from the first customers' current vehicles (see para [0048], "Customer marketing module 20 is operable to identify one or more targeted customers based on their current vehicle type, current vehicle mileage, current vehicle age, ongoing financial obligations associated with the current vehicle and/or variable parameters associated with a vehicle transaction proposal. In addition to identifying one or more targeted customers, the invention provides for the user to identify a proposed vehicle for the one or more targeted customers by either choosing a proposed vehicle from a listing of available vehicles or defining vehicle parameters for a proposed vehicle." and see para [0134]); and
Colson, however, does not specifically disclose a priority indicator for an alert from the plurality of alerts. In analogous art, Hankey discloses the following limitations:
determining a priority indicator for an alert from the plurality of alerts (see para [0063], where a ranking of the vehicles based on profit in a report can be considered different priorities for alerts given broadest reasonable interpretation), wherein determining the priority indicator comprises determining that the mileage value satisfies a threshold, and wherein the graphical user interface comprises the priority indicator (see para [0061]-[0063], showing dealer’s minimum profit is threshold in order to be rank ordered and displayed where it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the mileage value would be part of the profit calculation based on mileage being shown in the analysis of Colson).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Colson with Hankey because including such priority indicators would enable dealers to make more effective decisions related to their offers (see Hankey, para [0004]-[0006]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method for optimization of a financial transaction as taught by Hankey in the method for targeted and customized marketing of prospective customers of Colson, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 15 and 28:
Further, Colson discloses the following limitations:
determining a date associated with a current agreement from the customer data (see para [0121], "Additionally, information 720 may also include current vehicle value information 742, such as the book value used 744 and the determined book value amount 746. The previous/ongoing financial transaction contract information 520 may also include an estimated payoff 748 and a last payment due date 750. The estimated payoff amount 748 is determined as part of the vehicle proposal determination and is based on the current term, the finance rate, the amount financed and the number of estimated payments made since the inception of the sales contract.")
Colson, however, does not specifically disclose a priority indicator for an alert from the plurality of alerts. In analogous art, Hankey discloses the following limitations:
determining a priority indicator for an alert from the plurality of alerts (see para [0063], where a ranking of the vehicles based on profit in a report can be considered different priorities for alerts given broadest reasonable interpretation), wherein determining the priority indicator comprises determining that the date satisfies a threshold, and wherein the graphical user interface comprises the priority indicator (see para [0061]-[0063], showing dealer’s minimum profit is threshold in order to be rank ordered and displayed where it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the dates related to the agreement of the vehicle would be part of the profit calculation based on the agreement dates being shown in the analysis of Colson).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method for optimization of a financial transaction as taught by Hankey in the method for targeted and customized marketing of prospective customers of Colson, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 16 and 29:
Further, Colson discloses the following limitations:
determining a first payment value associated with a current agreement from the customer data (see para [0128], showing payment value for current vehicles);
determining a second payment value associated with a replacement agreement and a replacement vehicle for a customer from the potential customer pool (see para [0132], showing payment value for new vehicle);
Colson, however, does not specifically disclose a priority indicator for an alert from the plurality of alerts. In analogous art, Hankey discloses the following limitations:
determining a priority indicator for an alert from the plurality of alerts (see para [0063], where a ranking of the vehicles based on profit in a report can be considered different priorities for alerts given broadest reasonable interpretation), wherein determining the priority indicator comprises determining that a difference between the first payment value and the second payment value satisfies a threshold, and wherein the graphical user interface comprises the priority indicator (showing dealer’s minimum profit is threshold in order to be rank ordered and displayed where it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the dates related to the agreement of the vehicle would be part of the profit calculation based on the different payment values being shown in the analysis of Colson).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method for optimization of a financial transaction as taught by Hankey in the method for targeted and customized marketing of prospective customers of Colson, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 17 and 30:
determining a mileage value associated with a particular vehicle from the first customers' current vehicles (see para [0048], "Customer marketing module 20 is operable to identify one or more targeted customers based on their current vehicle type, current vehicle mileage, current vehicle age, ongoing financial obligations associated with the current vehicle and/or variable parameters associated with a vehicle transaction proposal. In addition to identifying one or more targeted customers, the invention provides for the user to identify a proposed vehicle for the one or more targeted customers by either choosing a proposed vehicle from a listing of available vehicles or defining vehicle parameters for a proposed vehicle." and see para [0134]);
determining a date associated with a current agreement for the particular vehicle from the customer data (see para [0121], "Additionally, information 720 may also include current vehicle value information 742, such as the book value used 744 and the determined book value amount 746. The previous/ongoing financial transaction contract information 520 may also include an estimated payoff 748 and a last payment due date 750. The estimated payoff amount 748 is determined as part of the vehicle proposal determination and is based on the current term, the finance rate, the amount financed and the number of estimated payments made since the inception of the sales contract."); and
Colson, however, does not specifically disclose a priority indicator for an alert from the plurality of alerts. In analogous art, Hankey discloses the following limitations:
determining a priority indicator for an alert from the plurality of alerts (see para [0063], where a ranking of the vehicles based on profit in a report can be considered different priorities for alerts given broadest reasonable interpretation) based at least in part on (i) the mileage value and (ii) the date, wherein the graphical user interface comprises the priority indicator (see para [0061]-[0063], showing dealer’s minimum profit is threshold in order to be rank ordered and displayed where it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the mileage value and agreements dates would be part of the profit calculation based on mileage and agreement dates being shown in the analysis of Colson).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method for optimization of a financial transaction as taught by Hankey in the method for targeted and customized marketing of prospective customers of Colson, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 31:
Further, Colson discloses the following limitations:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute further program instructions to cause the system to: determine a set of priority categories associated with a customer from the potential customer pool and at least one of (i) one or more service dates, (ii) a mileage value associated with a vehicle from the first customers' current vehicles, (iii) a date associated with a first current agreement from the customer data, or (iv) an expected payment difference between a second current agreement from the customer data and a replacement agreement; determine, from the set of priority categories (see para [0129], showing matching is based on vehicle type criteria and financial parameters which can be considered types of priority categories given broadest reasonable interpretation),
that the customer from the potential customer pool is associated with multiple priority categories (see para [0129], " At optional Event 1012, a listing of the customers that match or meet the selected vehicle type criteria and/or selected previous financial obligation parameters may be displayed.");
increase a priority indicator associated with the customer from the potential customer pool to a higher priority indicator (see para [0091], " UI 200 may also include prospective customer transaction variable parameters 244. The prospective customer transaction variable parameters 244 may include, but are not limited to, a variance amount above/below the current monthly payment amount field 246 that allows for the user/dealer to define an amount below/above the current monthly amount that the identified prospective customers may find acceptable." where changing the acceptable amount can be consider to show both increasing or decreasing would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art)
Colsonm however, does not specifically disclose wherein the graphical user interface comprises the higher priority indicator for an alert from the plurality of alerts. In analogous art, Hankey discloses the following limitations:
wherein the graphical user interface comprises the higher priority indicator for an alert from the plurality of alerts (see para [0061]-[0063], where it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the rank ordered would be on the updated dealer priorities as shown in para [0091] of Colson)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method for optimization of a financial transaction as taught by Hankey in the method for targeted and customized marketing of prospective customers of Colson, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Weisleder et al. (US 2010/0198629 A1), a motor vehicle valuation system and method with data filtering, analysis, and reporting capabilities where motor vehicle registration data, pricing data, and auction data may be processed in order to identify one or more types of motor vehicles (e.g., by make, model, year, and trim) for which a particular dealership is likely to generate a gross profit within that dealer's territory
Duckworth et al. (AU 2009/280166 A1), a system for sales promotion comprising a central promotions management system and sales systems at plurality of remote locations, the system comprising at least one computer programmed to: receive multiple sets of input parameters, each set corresponding with a financial incentives promotion, each set including promotion parameters and sponsorship parameters for the promotion, store the promotion parameters and sponsorship parameters, receive transaction data from a customer transaction at a sales system, apply rules generated from the promotion parameters to the transaction data to determine if the transaction qualifies for an award, for each transaction qualifying for an award, present award information to the customer, and applying rules generated from the sponsorship parameters to determine promotion sponsor and sponsor charges related to the award, and apply sponsor charges against accounts of promotion sponsors
Wainschel "The Competitive Context of Pricing and Incentives: Ensuring a Good Deal is a Big Deal", an article about market adjustment increases that have coincided with average inventory growth
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUJAY KONERU whose telephone number is 571-270-3409. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson can be reached on 571- 270-5396. 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.
/SUJAY KONERU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624