DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 21, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-18, and 20 were previously pending. Claims 1, 7, 15, and 17 were amended in the reply filed April 21, 2026. Claims 1, 3-9, 11-18, and 20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. "These features are directed to solving a technical problem of efficient resource deployment and network traffic management in monitoring systems, not to organizing human activity. The claims do not merely recite the abstract concept of monitoring shipments, but rather recite a specific technical solution for reducing the number of deployed monitoring resources and the associated network traffic through intelligent clustering and single-resource commissioning." Remarks, 11. The intended result limitation of reducing network traffic has been treated as an additional element. Its presence in the claim does not mean that an abstract idea is not also recited at this point in the analysis. "Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?" MPEP 2106.04 II. A. 1. Although Applicant also argues here that the claims "as a whole are directed to a specific technical solution" (Remarks, 11), the claims are not evaluated as a whole at Prong One. Instead, as set forth above, the only question is whether or not an abstract idea is recited. Applicant also argues with respect to mathematical calculations that the "the threshold comparison is not the focus of the claims" (Remarks, 11), this does not negate the fact that it is recited. The focus of the claims is on an improved commercial clustered shipment monitoring technique (which also involves mathematical comparisons), not, e.g. an improved sensor.
Applicant also argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. "Similarly, the amended claims as a whole are directed to a particular improvement in monitoring resource deployment." Remarks, 12. Monitoring resource deployment is business concern, not a technology. "The amended claims now explicitly recite this technical improvement: commissioning the single monitoring resource for the cluster reduces a total number of monitoring resources deployed and reduces network traffic generated by the monitoring resources as compared to commissioning separate monitoring resources for each of the identified one or more transportable units." Remarks, 13. As above, consolidating shipment monitoring for the purpose of more efficient resource usage is an improvement to commercial practices, not technology. The claimed invention is not related to any "specific improvement to computer functionality" (Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), a "challenge particular to the Internet" (DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)), or any other technology.
"This provides a specific, practical application in the monitoring technology domain by reducing resource deployment and network traffic, enabling more efficient monitoring operations. This is analogous to Example 40's finding that the claim 'provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring.'" Remarks, 13. The alleged improvement to network traffic is an insignificant post-solution limitation that is only tangentially related and has no nexus with the focus of the invention. The entirety of Applicant's discussion of network traffic benefits in the disclosure is confined to part of one sentence (published Specification, ¶ 0018). "The term 'extra-solution activity' can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim…. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent." MPEP 2106.05(g). Similarly here, other than the brief mention in the disclosure, the claimed invention otherwise has nothing to do with network traffic management and instead is directed to a system for managing and tracking shipments and deliveries. The argument that the claims improve network traffic was already addressed in the Final Rejection mailed 1/21/2026, ¶ 4.
Finally, Applicant argues that the claims recite "significantly more." "Applicant submits that the arrangement of all of the claim features provides an improvement to the technology of the claimed invention. That is, the claimed invention is directed to, and specifically recites, a method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable medium that are fundamentally different from generic computing functions or conventional human processes. The claimed steps amount to more than the sum of their parts, resulting in unique technical benefits including reduced monitoring resource deployment and reduced network traffic." Remarks, 14. These arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons detailed above and in the rejections below. Applicant has not invented, e.g., an improved sensor, and instead is merely using conventional sensors to monitor consolidated shipments in the flow of commerce. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/537846, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Specifically, the prior-filed application does not support, inter alia, to generate a cluster recommendation signal to trigger rendering of a recommendation to cluster the identified one or more transportable units, the recommendation indicating the transportable unit identifier associated with each of the identified one or more transportable units being recommended to be clustered. The priority date for all claims is that of the instant application, July 23, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1, 3-9, 11-18, and 20, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims—including
With respect to claim 1:
determining a transportable unit identifier uniquely identifying each of the plurality of transportable units, each of the plurality of transportable units having a set of discrete transportable units associated therewith;
retrieving, for each transportable unit identifier, a discrete unit identifier linked with the set of discrete transportable units of each of the plurality of transportable units, the discrete unit identifier uniquely identifying the set of discrete transportable units, wherein the retrieving is based on an interlinked relationship between the transportable unit identifier associated with each of the plurality of transportable units and the discrete unit identifier linked with the set of discrete transportable units of each of the plurality of transportable units;
determining, for each retrieved discrete unit identifier, a set of condition parameters required to be monitored for the set of discrete transportable units;
identifying one or more transportable units, from amongst the plurality of transportable units, having associated therewith the set of discrete transportable units requiring monitoring of analogous set of condition parameters;
generating a cluster recommendation signal to trigger rendering of a recommendation to cluster the identified one or more transportable units, the recommendation indicating the transportable unit identifier associated with each of the one or more transportable units being recommended to be clustered;
generating a resource commissioning signal to commission a single monitoring resource for the cluster of the identified one or more transportable units, wherein commissioning the single monitoring resource for the cluster reduces a total number of monitoring resources deployed as compared to commissioning separate monitoring resources for each of the identified one or more transportable units, and wherein the single monitoring resource is to monitor the set of condition parameters for the identified one or more transportable units;
receiving, in response to generation of the resource commissioning signal, resource data from the single monitoring resource, the resource data being indicative of a real-time value for each condition parameter in the set of condition parameters being monitored by the single monitoring resource;
comparing the value corresponding to each condition parameter in the set of condition parameters with a threshold value corresponding to each condition parameter in the set of condition parameters;
ascertaining, based on the comparison, whether to trigger an alert to indicate occurrence of an unintended change in the set of condition parameters; and
triggering the alert to indicate the occurrence of the unintended change in the set of condition parameters.
With respect to claim 7:
commissioning a single monitoring resource for transportable units, the transportable units comprising a first category of transportable units and a second category of transportable units, each of the second category of transportable units being a discrete transportable unit located within the first category of transportable units, wherein the first category and the second category have a hierarchical relationship therebetween, wherein the processor is to:
determine a transportable unit identifier uniquely identifying each of the first category of transportable units, wherein each of the first category of transportable units comprises a set of the second category of transportable units therein, the set of the second category of transportable units being a set of the discrete transportable units;
retrieve, for each transportable unit identifier, a discrete unit identifier linked with the set of discrete transportable units of each of the first category of transportable units, the discrete unit identifier uniquely identifying the set of discrete transportable units, wherein the processor is to retrieve based on the hierarchical relationship between the first category of transportable units and the set of discrete transportable units, the hierarchical relationship being indicative of an interlink between the transportable unit identifier corresponding to each of the first category of transportable units and the discrete unit identifier linked with the set of discrete transportable units of each of the first category of transportable units;
determine, for each retrieved discrete unit identifier, a set of condition parameters required to be monitored for the set of discrete transportable units of each of the first category of transportable units;
identify one or more transportable units, from amongst the first category of transportable units, having the set of discrete transportable units requiring monitoring of analogous set of condition parameters;
generate a cluster recommendation signal to trigger rendering of a recommendation to cluster the identified one or more transportable units, the recommendation indicating the transportable unit identifier associated with each of the identified one or more transportable units being recommended to be clustered; and
generate a resource commissioning signal to commission a single monitoring resource for the cluster of the identified one or more transportable units, wherein commissioning the single monitoring resource for the cluster reduces a total number of monitoring resources deployed as compared to commissioning separate monitoring resources for each of the identified one or more transportable units, and wherein the single monitoring resource is to be commissioned for monitoring the set of condition parameters for the identified one or more transportable units;
receive, in response to generation of the resource commissioning signal, resource data from the single monitoring resource, the resource data being indicative of a real-time value for each condition parameter in the set of condition parameters being monitored by the single monitoring resource;
compare the value corresponding to each condition parameter in the set of condition parameters with a threshold value corresponding to each condition parameter in the set of condition parameters;
ascertain, based on the comparison, whether to trigger an alert to indicate occurrence of an unintended change in the set of condition parameters; and
trigger the alert to indicate the occurrence of the unintended change in the set of condition parameters.
With respect to claim 17:
determine a transportable unit identifier uniquely identifying each of the transportable units, each of the transportable units having:
a set of discrete transportable units associated therewith, the set of discrete transportable units having linked therewith a discrete unit identifier uniquely identifying the set of discrete transportable units; and
a hierarchy of identifier codes, the hierarchy comprising a first level code and a second level code, wherein the first level code comprises the transportable unit identifier uniquely identifying each of the transportable units, and the second level code comprises the discrete unit identifier linked with the set of discrete transportable units;
obtain, for each transportable unit identifier, a discrete unit identifier linked with the set of discrete transportable units associated with their respective transportable unit from amongst the transportable units;
determine, for each obtained discrete unit identifier, a set of condition parameters required to be monitored for the set of discrete transportable units;
identify one or more transportable units, from amongst the transportable units, having associated therewith the set of discrete transportable units that require monitoring of same set of condition parameters;
generate a cluster recommendation signal to trigger rendering of a recommendation to cluster the identified one or more transportable units, the recommendation indicating the transportable unit identifier associated with each of the identified one or more transportable units being recommended to be clustered; and
generate a resource commissioning signal to commission a single monitoring resource for the cluster of the identified one or more transportable units, wherein commissioning the single monitoring resource for the cluster reduces a total number of monitoring resources deployed as compared to commissioning separate monitoring resources for each of the identified one or more transportable units, and wherein the single monitoring resource is to be commissioned for monitoring the set of condition parameters for the identified one or more transportable units;
receive, in response to generation of the resource commissioning signal, resource data from the single monitoring resource, the resource data being indicative of a real-time value for each condition parameter in the set of condition parameters being monitored by the single monitoring resource;
compare the value corresponding to each condition parameter in the set of condition parameters with a threshold value corresponding to each condition parameter in the set of condition parameters;
ascertain, based on the comparison, whether to trigger an alert to indicate occurrence of an unintended change in the set of condition parameters; and
trigger the alert to indicate the occurrence of the unintended change in the set of condition parameters.
These limitations taken together qualify as a certain method of organizing human activities because they recite collecting, analyzing, and outputting information for managing the transportation of items in the flow of commerce and optimizing logistics decision-making (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, fundamental economic practices; commercial interactions (including sales activities or behaviors). Moreover, they recite mathematical relationships (i.e., comparing real-time parameters to thresholds).
It shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)—process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as a process of gathering and analyzing information of transportable units, then displaying recommended results; Secured Mail Solutions v. Universal Wilde, 873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017)—communicating information about a mail object using a personalized marking, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as communicating information about a transportable unit using a unique code; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Idem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315 (2017)—creating an index and using that index to search for and retrieve data, which also characterizes the invention at another level of abstraction).
These cases describe significantly similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions being executable by a processing resource, scanning of a machine-readable code associated with each of a plurality of transportable units—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it."
Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added). In addition to being a generic function, scanning of a machine-readable code associated with each of a plurality of transportable units can also be viewed as extra-solution activity (i.e., a tangential pre-solution data gathering step of collecting information about the transportable units in order to proceed with the abstract clustering analysis, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims also recite that the commissioning "reduces network traffic generated by the monitoring resources." This is an insignificant post-solution limitation that is only tangentially related and has little to do with the focus of the invention. "The term 'extra-solution activity' can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim…. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent." MPEP 2106.05(g). Similarly here, the claimed invention otherwise has nothing to do with network traffic management and is instead directed to a system for managing and tracking shipments and deliveries.
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions being executable by a processing resource, scanning of a machine-readable code associated with each of a plurality of transportable units—see published Specification ¶¶ 0046, 68, 122 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
The claims also recite that the commissioning "reduces network traffic generated by the monitoring resources." However, as above, this is tangential to the invention. Moreover, the Specification only mentions this potential benefit once in a partial sentence in a background discussion (¶ 0018). The actual benefit is never described at any level of technical detail. "The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology." MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the same abstract idea identified above without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations when viewed in combination fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims.
Claims 3 and 11 recite audio/visual alerts, however these are merely an extra-solution data outputting function (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 8 recites a data storage unit, however this is a generic computer component that does nothing more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Claim 14 recites a barcode however this is both a generic tool and part of the pre-solution data gathering code scanning activity already addressed for the independent claims.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Although they add the elements identified in 2A above (audio/visual alerts, data storage unit, barcode), these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above (see published Specification ¶¶ 0044, 68, 104 describing these at a high level of generality and without appreciable technical specifics). Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights