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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-25 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the server" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-6, 12-18, 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Positect Power Tools (EP 4029372) (hereafter ‘372’) in view of Yang et al. (US 2021/0165109) and/or Shire et al. (US 2022/0394516).
As per claim 1, (‘372’) discloses An animal containment system [a pet collar system comprising a training apparatus (300)] comprising:
an animal tracking device comprising:
a housing affixable to an animal [a collar body (700) affixable to an animal];
a memory positioned within the housing [a storage unit (332) positioned within the collar body (700)];
a processor operatively connected to the memory and positioned within the housing [a microprocessor (330) operatively connected to the storage unit (332) and positioned within the collar body (700)];
a global positioning unit communicatively connected to the processor and configured to receive first positioning data [a satellite positioning system (800) communicatively connected to the microprocessor (330)];
a wireless communication interface configured for data exchange between the processor and one or more remote computing systems, wherein the wireless communication interface is configured to obtain observation data from a base station having positional accuracy greater than that of the global positioning unit to determine an adjusted location of the animal tracking device having improved accuracy relative to a position independently determined via the first positioning data from the global positioning unit [a terminal communications module (360) configured for data exchange between the microprocessor (330) and one or more remote computing systems, wherein the terminal communications module (360) is configured to obtain observation data from a base station (600) having positional accuracy greater than that of the satellite positioning system (800) to determine an adjusted location of the training apparatus (300) having improved accuracy relative to a position independently determined via a first positioning data from the satellite positioning system (800)];
wherein the memory stores instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the animal tracking device to perform: initiating a boundary definition mode; while in the boundary definition mode, tracking a path of movement of the animal tracking device using the first positioning data and the observation data to automatically capture a series of positions along the path; receiving an indication terminating the boundary definition mode from a user; and after exiting the boundary definition mode, generating a virtual boundary that is bounded, at least in part, by the boundary line [wherein the storage unit (332) stores instructions which, when executed by the microprocessor (330), cause the training apparatus (300) to perform: initiating a boundary definition mode; while in the boundary definition mode, tracking a path of movement of the training apparatus (300) using the first positioning data and the observation data to automatically capture a series of positions along the path; receiving an indication terminating the boundary definition mode from a user; and after exiting the boundary definition mode, generating a virtual boundary that is bounded, at least in part, by the boundary line (see paragraphs [0271]-[0323] and figures 31-36)].
In other words, (‘372’) discloses an animal containment system including an animal tracking device that captures a series of position data while a virtual boundary, however (‘372’) does not explicitly mention "an animal tracking device to perform initiating at least one of a decimation operation, smoothing operation or a curve-fitting operation on the series of positions to obtain a boundary line".
Yang teaches performing interpolation and smooth filtering on GPS positioning results to obtain boundary position data (map boundary points) (Para. 313), which corresponds to performing a smoothing operation on a series of captured positions to generate a boundary.
Alternatively or additionally, Shire teaches estimating a geographical boundary by fitting a curve to recorded location-time entries, subject to smoothness constraints (Fig. 3 discussion), which corresponds to performing a curve-fitting operation on a series of positions to obtain a boundary line.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to apply the smoothing and/or curve-fitting techniques taught by Yang and/or Shire to the system of (‘372’) in order to reduce noise, improve accuracy, and generate a stable virtual boundary, as these are well-known and predictable solutions for processing location data. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
As per claim 2, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim and (‘372’) further teaches
a mobile device having an animal tracking application installed thereon (Para 316-318,280,284,315: a mobile terminal such as smartphone, executing a pet management application),
execution of a pet management application on the mobile device for defining and managing pet movement region (Para 281-283,316);
display a map interface on the mobile device, including graphically displayed boundaries corresponding to pet movement region (Para. 317, Fig. 3-5);
allowing a user to edit and confirm the boundary regions via the map interface (Para. 317). Thus (‘372’) teaches a mobile device having a pet tracking application installed thereon, the mobile device being communicatively connected to the animal tracking device, and configured to display a map interface including a boundary and to receive user confirmation of the boundary. In other words, the mobile device being communicatively connected to the animal tracking device (Para 279,284,286,317) and configured to: receive data describing the boundary line (Para 317,320); display a map interface including the boundary line (Para 317).
However, (‘372’) does not explicitly mention that the mobile device is configured to receive data describing the boundary line itself as generated by the animal tracking device and then confirm that boundary
Yang explicitly teaches user confirmation of boundary data via mobile UI, reinforcing that confirmation is received through the application interface (Para 312-314). In addition, Yang discloses a positioning apparatus (wearable or portable device) records boundary position data while a user walks a boundary (Para 313); the boundary data is stored and communicated to a device for visualization and processing (Para 313); the system performs interpolation and smoothing to generated boundary position data (map boundary point) (Para. 313); the resulting boundary data is used for display and confirmation of the boundary (Para. 313). Yang explicitly teaches a system in which boundary data describing a boundary line is generated by a positioning device and received by another device for map display and confirmation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify the system of (‘372’) to include receiving boundary line data at the mobile device as taught by Yang. Both references are in the same filed of endeavor (geofencing /boundary definition using positioning devices and mobile application) and address similar problem of defining, visualizing, and confirming boundaries on a map interface. Incorporating the boundary data transfer and confirmation mechanism of Yang into the mobile device base pet containment system of (‘372’) would have been an obvious design to improve boundary accuracy, enable automated boundary generation workflows and allow user confirmation of computed boundaries via map interface. It would be an implementation of use of know techniques to improve similar device in the same way.
As per claim 3, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim and (‘372’) further teaches initiating the boundary definition mode includes initiating the boundary definition mode at the animal tracking device (Para 284,286, 316-317).
Yang teaches “from a control option within a user interface of the animal tracking application” (Para 310-313: initiating boundary recording and boundary definition operations via UI controls on a mobile application, which send instructions to the tracking device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to initiate boundary definition mode of (‘372’) via a UI control as taught by Yang to improve usability and reduce user error, a well-recognized design goal is consumer tracking system. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
As per claim 4, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim and (‘372’) further teaches in a tracking mode, determining, at the animal tracking device, a location of the animal tracking device based on the first positioning data and the observation data; and based on the location of the animal tracking device being outside of the virtual boundary, initiating a corrective action at the animal tracking device (Para 275-278,286-288).
As per claim 5, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim and (‘372’) further teaches the corrective action includes at least one of an electrical stimulus, an ultrasonic stimulus, a vibration, or a sound (Para 288; Fig. 4).
As per claim 6, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim and (‘372’) further teaches a mobile device having an animal tracking application installed thereon, wherein the mobile device is communicatively connected to the animal tracking device and configured to receive a notification from the animal tracking device in response to the corrective action (Para 284,287,316).
Yang further teaches sending notifications to a mobile device in response to boundary events, reinforcing the claimed feedback mechanism (Para 313,315).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to include the feature of Yang to the mobile device communication of (‘372’) because both (‘372’) and Yang are in the same field (location based boundary system) and Yang provides well-known mobile UI controls and notifications that improve usability of systems like (‘372’). It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
As per claim 12, it corresponds to claim 1; it is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth.
Therefore, (‘372’) discloses an animal containment system including an animal tracking device comprising a housing configured to be affixable to an animal; a memory; a processor operatively connected to the memory; a global positioning unit; a wireless communication interface configured to obtain observation data from a base station having positional accuracy greater than that of the GPS unit, thereby determining an adjusted location (Para. 287-290). (‘372’) further teaches initiating a boundary definition mode, capturing a series of positions along a path while in the boundary definition mode, receiving a user indication terminating the boundary definition mode, and generating a virtual boundary that is bounded, at least in part, by a boundary line. In (‘372’), all processing operation, including decimation, smoothing, and curve-fitting, are performed within the animal tracking device itself.
Claim 12 differs from claim 1 and (‘372’) in that it does not explicitly mention “a computing system including a computing device including a processor and a memory” wherein the computing device executes the decimation, smoothing, and/or curve-fitting operations on the series of positions to obtain a boundary line. In claim 12, the animal tracking device only captures the series of positions, while the computational processing is offloaded to the computing device.
Yang teaches performing interpolation and smooth filtering on GPS and PDR positioning results to obtain boundary position data (map boundary points) using a computing device communicatively connected to a tracking device (Para 313). Yang thus discloses the concept of separating data collection (performed by the tracking device) from data processing (performed by a computing device), which corresponds to the claimed computing system performing decimation, smoothing, and/or curve-fitting on the series of positions captured by the tracking device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify the system of (‘372’) to offload the decimation, smoothing, and/or curve-fitting operations to a separate computing device as taught by Yang because 1) offloading computationally intensive operations to an external computing device is a well known solution in GPS and location tracking system to reduce on-device computation and power consumption, 2) Yang demonstrates that performing interpolation and smoothing using a separate computing device produces accurate boundary points while reducing the computational burden on the tracking device. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
As per claim 13, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim and (‘372’) further discloses that data related to boundary definition is exchanged between an animal tracking device and external computer devices (Para. 294), establishing remote communication. In addition, (‘372’) captures a series of position data while the animal traverses a boundary (e.g. boundary definition modes, however, only transmits processed boundary data, not the raw series of positions.
Yang explicitly discloses a remote computing system/server that receives location data from a positioning apparatus for processing and storage (Para. 309-313). In addition, Yang teaches transmitting raw positioning data (GPS and PDR positioning results) from the tracking device to a remote computing device for interpolation and smoothing to obtain boundary position data (Para. 313). Yang expressly teaches server side reception of a series of positions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify the system of (‘372’) to transmit the captured series of position data to a remote server, as taught by Yang for computational efficiency such as performing boundary generation processing on a server reduces processing and power requirements on the animal tracing device. In addition, Yang demonstrates that server side processing of raw location data is a known and predictable design choice in positioning system. (‘372’) already communicates boundary related data externally; substituting raw position data transmission for processed boundary transmission is a straightforward and predictable modification. It would be an implementation of use of know techniques to improve similar device in the same way.
As pe claim 14, it corresponds to claim 2; it is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth.
As pe claim 15, it corresponds to claim 3; it is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth.
As pe claim 16, it corresponds to claim 4; it is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth.
As per claim 17, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim and (‘372’) further discloses display a map user interface depicting the virtual boundary (Para 293-294,317; boundary is drawn and display in Google map on a mobile phone);
receive an adjustment to a map image to shift a position and/or orientation of the map image to correlate the adjusted location to a known position on the map image [(‘372’) teaches manual editing of regions (inside/outside boundaries) in Google Maps (Para 317) but does not explicitly teaches shifting positing position and/or orientation of the map image to correlate a known device location to a known map position. Also no explicit “map offset” or coordinate alignment operation is disclosed. Yang teaches correlating GPS/PDR based locations with map boundary points using interpolation and smoothing. Implies adjustment of spatial alignment between positions and map coordinates. Supports map based correction and alignment logic. Shire teaches explicit map boundary estimation and adjustment by fitting curves to recorded locations and applying positional correlation and offset (Fig. 3) and teaches shifting a boundary representation to align with known location data.];
store the adjustment as a map offset associated with the virtual boundary [(‘372’): Para 294, 317) store boundary information after user editing, but does not explicitly label or describe storage of a “map offset” result from map image adjustment. Yang/ Shire teaches storing adjust boundary data after alignment/correlation processing. This inherently include storing offset or corrected boundary data tied to the virtual boundary.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to incorporate the map adjustment, alignment, and offset storage techniques taught by Yang and/or Shire into the mobile map based boundary editing system of (‘372’) in order to: 1) improve spatial accuracy between device derived location data and map representations; 2) reduce user error when defining virtual boundaries; 3) provide predictable and reliable alignment between GPS derived positions and displayed map boundaries. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
As per claim 18, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim and (‘372’) further discloses display a map user interface (Para 293, 317); receive a user input indicative of a property at which to create a virtual boundary (Para 317); and send a request to a remote system including an identifier of the property (Para 313,292; in addition: Yang/Shire both teach sending location identified requests to remote system such as servers or network components).
As per claim 20, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim and (‘372’) further teaches at a subsequent time and in a tracking mode, determining, at the animal tracking device, a location of the animal tracking device based on first positioning data from the global positioning unit and observation data from the base station (Para. 268-275, 287). Although (‘372’) may not use the exact phase “tracking mode” or “subsequent time”, it clearly discloses ongoing post boundary monitoring, which inherently occurs at times subsequent to boundary definition. In addition, (‘372’) further teaches “and based on the location of the animal tracking device being outside of the virtual boundary at the subsequent time, initiating a corrective action at the animal tracking device.” (Para. 287-288).
As pe claim 21, it corresponds to claim 1; it is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth.
As pe claim 22, it corresponds to claim 4; it is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth.
As pe claim 23, it corresponds to claim 5; it is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth.
As pe claim 24, it corresponds to claim 1; it is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth.
Claim(s) 10-11, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Positect Power Tools (EP 4029372) (hereafter ‘372’) in view of Yang et al. (US 2021/0165109) and/or Shire et al. (US 2022/0394516), further in view of Golden (US 2015/0107531).
As per claim 10, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim and (‘372’) discloses an animal containment system including an animal tracking device that captures a series of positions along a path while defining a virtual boundary based on movement of the animal (e.g. boundary definition mode and path tracking). However (‘372’) does not explicitly discloses defining the virtual boundary using a plurality of waypoints that is a reduced number of locations relative to the captured series of positions.
Yang teaches performing interpolation processing and smooth filtering on GPS positioning results (and PDR results) to obtain eventual boundary position data (map boundary points) (Para 313). This disclosure teaches that a subset of processed boundary points is derived from an original set of position measurements, corresponding to generating boundary points suitable for defining a boundary line, rather than retaining all captured positions.
Golden further teaches representing a boundary or guided path using a selectable number of segments or points, wherein some boundaries may require only a few segments, while others require dozens of segments, depending on terrain and design needs (Para 51). This disclosure expressly teaches that a boundary may be defined using a reduced number of representative locations relative to an underlying traversal path.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify the system of (‘372’) to define the virtual boundary using a plurality of waypoints that is a reduced number of locations as taught by Yang and Golden, in order to simplify boundary representation, reduce data storage and processing requirements, and improve robustness and usability of the virtual boundary, which are recognized and predictable benefits of waypoint based boundary representations. It would be an implementation of use of know techniques to improve similar device in the same way.
As per claim 11, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim and (‘372’) discloses capturing a series of position data during boundary definition and generating a virtual boundary, but does not explicitly disclose that the reduction to a plurality of waypoints occurs in response to a smoothing operation or a curve-fitting operation.
Yang expressly teaches performing smooth filtering on GPS and interpolated positing results to obtain boundary position data (map boundary points) (Para. 313). This discloses teaches that smoothing operations inherently result in fewer, refined boundary points relative to the original set of captured positions, thereby producing a reduced number of locations suitable for defining a boundary.
Golden further reinforces that boundaries or paths maybe represented using variable numbers of segments or points, and that the number of such segments can be reduced depending on design needs while still accurately defining a boundary (Para 51). This supports the concept that processed boundary data, after smoothing or fitting, results in a reduced waypoint set.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to apply the smoothing technique of Yang to the boundary definition process of (‘372’), and to represent the result boundary using a reduced number of waypoints as taught by Golden, because smoothing and curve-fitting operations are well known technique for reducing noise and data density in location based path while preserving the overall boundary shape.
It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
As per claim 19, the combined invention meets the limitation of claim and (‘372’) discloses the animal containment system (see rejection of claim 12), wherein the plurality of waypoints is a reduced number of locations relative to the series of positions along the path received at the server [(‘372’): Para 37, however (‘372’) does not explicitly teach reducing that series of captured positions into a smaller set of waypoints. Golden teaches representing a path or boundary using a reduced number of segment or points, depending on terrain and required accuracy (Para. 51; Fig. 8A-8B). A “segment” in Golden necessarily corresponds to a waypoint to waypoint representation of a path, which is a reduced number of locations relative to raw tracked position data. Thus Golden teaches the concept of reducing a dense path into fewer representative waypoints.];
the reduction in number of locations being based on the smoothing operation or the curve fitting operation [Yang teaches reducing and refining raw position data into a smaller, smoother set of boundary points, which corresponds directly to reducing the number of locations, and basing that reduction on a smoothing operation (Para 313). Alternatively, Shire teaches estimating a geographical boundary by fitting a curve to recorded location time entries, applying smoothness conditions to the fitted curve, and using the fitted curve to represent a boundary rather than raw position samples (Fig. 3). Curve fitting inherently replaces a dense series of points with a reduced mathematical representation, from which discrete waypoints mya be derived. In the words, Yang and Shire teach reducing a series of positions into fewer representative locations based on smoothing and/or curve-fitting operations.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to modify the system of (‘372’) to reduce the series of captured boundary positions into a reduced number of waypoints using smoothing and/or curve-fitting techniques as taught by Yang and/or Shire, and to represent the resulting boundary using fewer segments or points as taught by Golden, because 1) nose reduction and accuracy improvement, 2) computational efficiency and storage reduction, 3) predicable use of known techniques, and 4) functional compatibility. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Positect Power Tools (EP 4029372) (hereafter ‘372’) in view of Yang et al. (US 2021/0165109), further in view of Golden (US 2015/0107531).
As per claim 25, (‘372’) discloses a method of defining a virtual boundary for an animal containment system (Para 271-323; Fig. 31-36), the method comprising: receiving, at a display on a user computing device, a definition of a virtual boundary on a map user interface (Para 293,294,317);
receiving an adjustment to the map image to shift a position and/or orientation of the map image to correlate a known location of an animal tracking device to a known position on the map image, wherein the known location of the animal tracking device is based on position data obtained from a global positioning unit of the animal tracking device and observation data having positional accuracy greater than that of the global positioning unit [(‘372’) does not explicitly discloses a map offset, map image shifting, or orientation adjustment to align a known tracked device position with a known map position. (‘372’) discloses editing the boundary regions in Google Map (Para 317), but does not expressly teach shift map position, rotating map orientation, or storing map offset that correlates GNSS+RTK positioning data to a display map. (‘372’) discloses that the animal tracking device receives GNSS positioning data, and receive RTK based correction data from a base station having higher positional accuracy to determine an adjusted location (Para 272-278). Yang teaches post-processing of position data on a user device including: interpolating positioning results, smooth filter of GPS data, and generating corrected boundary position data that is displayed and confirmed on a map interface (Para 313). Yang inherently teaches adjusting displayed map data to reconcile difference between raw GNSS data and corrected positioning results, which necessarily involves map alignment / offset correction to ensure boundary accuracy. This teaches the claimed “receiving an adjustment to the map image to correlate a known device location with a known map position”.]; and
storing the adjustment as a map offset associated with the virtual boundary [(‘372’) discloses storing boundary information in memory (Para 282,294), it does not explicitly store a map offset. However Yang teaches storing corrected boundary data after interpolation and smoothing (Para 313). Golden teaches storing boundary definitions composed of reduced, structured segments optimized for navigation and alignment (Para 51; Fig. 8A-8B). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that map alignment adjustments must be stored to maintain consistent boundary correlation across sessions and devices.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to combine (‘372’) with Yang and Golden because: (‘372’) provides the core animal containment system using GNSS and higher accuracy observation data to define virtual boundary. Yang teaches refining, correcting, and aligning position based boundary data on a user computing device to improve accuracy and usability. Golden teaches structured storage of boundary data and optimized boundary representations. Combining these references would have been a predictable use of known techniques to improve map to real world alignment, reduce positioning error, ensure persistent and accurate boundary definition. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. 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.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689