Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Application with case number 18/957,562, filed on 11/22/2024 in which claims 1-18 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending, of which claims 1, 7, and 13 are in independent form.
Specification
The examiner notes that the Specification does not include any URL links and Trademark terms requiring capitalization.
The examiner notes that the abstract is in narrative form and is limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The examiner also notes that Abstract includes no legal phraseology.
The examiner notes no claims invokes 35 USC § 112 6th paragraph.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In claim 13, the limitations – a signal measurement module configured to…; a modulation factor generator configured to…; a confidence evaluation module configured to… are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1, 7 recites the limitation "the authenticating identity" in the second to last limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 8, 14 recites the limitation "the authenticating" in the first limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6, 12, 18 recites the limitation "the operational context" in the first limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malaney (WO 2006/002458 A1).
As to claim 1, Malaney teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising stored computer-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
receive a candidate signal (see page 13, lines 17-20, e.g., a node sending received signal-strength (RSS)) transmitted from a computing device located near a secured asset (see Fig. 3, step 304, e.g. a new node requesting access to secured network within a secured enterprise building; see Fig. 3, step 310 “uses GPS and RSS inputs to calculate a quantitative security value (S) associated with Node ), wherein the computing device transmits the signal in response to a target user requesting access to the secure asset (see page 36, lines 23-31 “Instead of having the requesting node simply inform the server of its received RSS values (as is done in normal fingerprint positioning systems), two or more or perhaps all of the access points measure the RSS values received from the requesting node directly, and compare these values with those in the database. ”);
compare the candidate signal to a cluster of signals measured during past successful authentications by the computing device (e.g., the RSS values stored in fingerprint database, where the RSS values are collected from the authorized access points, see page. 36 line 29 to page 37, line 1) to determine a modulation factor (e.g., Error Ellipse on the position of the requesting node or more specifically the scaling factor K for an ellipse given in equation 23 on page 23; see page 18, lines 1-9; see also page 19, lines 6-11, It is noted that given the signal strength vector S input through the access requesting node is being used to calculate a Fisher Information Matrix (FIM) which is then used to derive the error ellipse.);
determine a match probability for the target user based on the determined modulation factor (see step 310 in Fig. 3, e.g, calculating Quantitative Security Value (S) associated with Node; see also page 18, lines 1-9, “The claimed GPS position of the requesting node is then compared with the error ellipse to set a probability level that the node is in a position consistent with claimed GPS position.”; see page 23 lines 18-23 for the probability P of a radio position being inside an error ellipse centered at the true position.; see page 24, lines 2-7 “The value of S, given by S = 1-P, is the probability that a friendly node may be on or outside the scaled ellipse by chance. If S is determined to be too small (less than the value of T), the node is designated as potentially unfriendly, and access to the network is denied”), wherein the match probability represents a likelihood that an identity of the requesting target user matches the authenticating identity (see page 18, lines 10-13; It is noted that if the probability level S is less than the specified security threshold T, the requesting node id identified as a potential malicious user and access to the network is denied. The examiner equates the malicious user as equivalent to the requesting user not matching true identity of the user. And the examiner considers the friendly user as equivalent to the requesting user matching the true identity of the user as S is greater than T.); and
grant the requesting target user access to the secured asset in response to determining that the match probability is greater than the operational security threshold (see page 24, lines 2-7 “The value of S, given by S = 1-P, is the probability that a friendly node may be on or outside the scaled ellipse by chance. If S is determined to be too small (less than the value of T), the node is designated as potentially unfriendly, and access to the network is denied”.)
Claim(s) 7 include(s) similar limitations as claim 1 and thus claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under the same rationale as in claim 1.
As to claim 13, Malaney system comprising:
a computing device (e.g., a new node) located near a secured asset, wherein the computing device transmits a candidate signal in response to a target user requesting access to the secure asset (see page 13, lines 17-20, e.g., received signal-strength (RSS) measurements playing a significant role in determining the relative locations of mobile nodes; see page 36 line 23-36 “…the new node )the requesting node) passes its received RSS values to a server, which in turn passes this information to its stored fingerprint to match the RSS values…”);
a signal measurement module (e.g., LESS system in page 36. Lines 26-28) configured to receive the candidate signal transmitted from the computing device (see Fig. 3, step 304, e.g. a new node requesting access to secured network within a secured enterprise building; see Fig. 3, step 310 “uses GPS and RSS inputs to calculate a quantitative security value (S) associated with Node);
a modulation factor generator configured to compare the candidate signal to a cluster of signals (e.g., the RSS values stored in fingerprint database, where the RSS values are collected from the authorized access points, see page. 36 line 29 to page 37, line 1) measured during past successful authentications by the computing device to determine a modulation factor (e.g., Error Ellipse on the position of the requesting node or more specifically the scaling factor K for an ellipse given in equation 23 on page 23; see page 18, lines 1-9; see also page 19, lines 6-11, It is noted that given the signal strength vector S input through the access requesting node is being used to calculate a Fisher Information Matrix (FIM) which is then used to derive the error ellipse.);
a confidence evaluation module (e.g., LESS) configured to:
determine a match probability for the target user based on the determined
modulation factor (see step 310 in Fig. 3, e.g, calculating Quantitative Security Value (S) associated with Node; see also page 18, lines 1-9, “The claimed GPS position of the requesting node is then compared with the error ellipse to set a probability level that the node is in a position consistent with claimed GPS position.”; see page 23 lines 18-23 for the probability P of a radio position being inside an error ellipse centered at the true position.; see page 24, lines 2-7 “The value of S, given by S = 1-P, is the probability that a friendly node may be on or outside the scaled ellipse by chance. If S is determined to be too small (less than the value of T), the node is designated as potentially unfriendly, and access to the network is denied”), wherein the match probability represents a likelihood that an identity of the requesting target user matches the authenticating identity (see page 18, lines 10-13; It is noted that if the probability level S is less than the specified security threshold T, the requesting node id identified as a potential malicious user and access to the network is denied. The examiner equates the malicious user as equivalent to the requesting user not matching true identity of the user. And the examiner considers the friendly user as equivalent to the requesting user matching the true identity of the user as S is greater than T.); and
grant the requesting target user access to the secured asset in response to
determining that the match probability is greater than the operational security threshold (see page 24, lines 2-7 “The value of S, given by S = 1-P, is the probability that a friendly node may be on or outside the scaled ellipse by chance. If S is determined to be too small (less than the value of T), the node is designated as potentially unfriendly, and access to the network is denied”.)
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malaney, in view of Harris et al. (WO 2019/143360 A1) hereinafter Harris.
As to claim 2, in view of claim 1, Malney does not explicitly teach but Theodore teaches the following limitations - wherein the instructions further comprise instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to: access a plurality of signals (e.g., interaction data) measured during past successful authentications by the authenticating (see para. [0059] “The authentication hub 210 also performs community prediction 223. The authentication hub 210 can use community prediction 223 to determine a set of predicted communities that the access request is predicted to be within using a predictive model based on interaction data (e.g., an IP address) for a plurality of previous access requests”); and
generate one or more clusters of signals from the plurality of signals measured during past successful authentications (see para. [0083] “For example, the authentication hub can obtain client authentication information 322 from the access request 312. The authentication hub can also determine a subset of registered authentication information corresponding to account identifiers included in the predicted subset of the plurality of communities. As described herein, the authentication process can be sped up by only comparing the client authentication information 322 to a subset of the registered authentication information 324 (instead of the entire set of registered authentication information). This process is useful when the access request includes biometric data, audio data, or image data as authentication information but does not include an identifier of a particular account or user. The authentication hub can determine an authentication outcome 326 (e.g., whether the access request has been authenticated) based on whether the client authentication information 322 matches registered authentication information included in the subset 324.”), wherein each cluster of the one or more clusters represents a pattern of access to the secured asset (see para. [0092]-[0093] “[0092]…The authentication hub can determine interaction data for the incoming access request based on the data included in the access request and information gathered by the authentication hub at the time the access request is received (e.g., date, time of day, network address, network route, etc.). The interaction data for the access request can then be compared to the predictive model to determine a set of predicted communities. The set of predicted communities being a subset of the plurality of communities in the topological graph. [0093] In one example, the interaction data for a particular incoming access request may comprise a location and a resource manager identifier. The authentication hub can apply the interaction data for the access request to the predictive model to identify a set of predicted communities that were formed based on interaction data similar to the interaction data in the incoming access request. For example, an incoming access request having interaction data indicating a location of “941 10,” and a resource manager identifier of “3” may be determined to fall within “Community A” of FIG. 4 since “Community A” includes nodes for the location of “94110,” and the resource manager identifier of “3.” Thus, the authentication hub can determine that Community A is a predicted community for the incoming access request.”; The examiner considers the location combination of location and resource manager-based group/community as a pattern of access based on location.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Malney and Harris before him or her, to modify the scheme of Malney by including Harris. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to determine a group of reduced set of registered authentication data to compare against authentication information in the incoming access request.
Claims 8 and 14 include similar limitations as claim 2 and thus claims 8 and 14 are rejected under the same rationale as in claim 2.
As to claim 5, in view of claim 1, Malney does not explicitly teach but Harris teaches wherein the instructions for comparing the candidate signal to the cluster of signals further comprises instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to: encode a vector representation of the candidate signal; encode a vector representation of each signal of the cluster of signals; and determine a distance between the vector representation of the candidate signal and the vector representation of each signal of the cluster of signals to determine the candidate signal matches the signal of the cluster of signals. (see para. [0006] “This can be done by vectorizing each of the communities and interaction data for the new access request and then determining whether a vector distance between the vector for the new access request and a vector for a community is within a predetermined range.”; see also para. [0061], [0063], and [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Malney and Harris before him or her, to modify the scheme of Malney by including Harris. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to make an authentication determination based on risk score using vectorized representation of authentication data for incoming access request authentication data and the community authentication data.
Claims 11 and 17 include similar limitations as claim 5 and thus claims 11 and 17 are rejected under the same rationale as in claim 5.
Claim(s) 6, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malaney, in view of Lee et al. (WO 2019/221325 A1) hereinafter Lee.
As to claim 6, in view of claim 1, Malney does teaches wherein the instructions further comprise instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to: deny the target user access to the operational context in response to determining the match probability is less than a threshold assigned to the operational security (see page 5, lines 13-20 “The method comprises the steps of: receiving a network access request from a node requesting access to the wireless network; calculating a probability level for a position for the requesting node using position information claimed by the requesting node and position information about the requesting node derived from signal measurements for the requesting node received by at least one existing authorised node in the wireless network; and denying access for the requesting node to the wireless network if the probability level does not satisfy a specified threshold condition for network security.”).
Malney does not explicitly teach but Lee teaches “request a secondary authentication mechanism verify the identity of the target user” (see third page lines 8-11 “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, when the user ID matching probability is equal to or less than an authentication threshold and equal to or greater than a rejection threshold, the authentication unit may request another method of additional authentication to determine whether to permit or deny access.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Malney and Lee before him or her, to modify the scheme of Malney by including Lee. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to make a second additional authentication evaluation of user when an initial assessment of user identification probability is less than a threshold value.
Claims 12 and 18 include similar limitations as claim 6 and thus claims 12 and 18 are rejected under the same rationale as in claim 6.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,192,197 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claims 1-18 is anticipated by patent claims 1-18.
Claim 1 of instant application is compared to claim 1 of US PAT 12,192,197 as follows.
Application 18957592
USPAT 12,192,197
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising stored computer-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
receive a candidate signal transmitted from a computing device located near a secured
asset, wherein the computing device transmits the signal in response to a target user requesting access to the secure asset;
compare the candidate signal to a cluster of signals measured during past successful authentications by the computing device to determine a modulation factor;
determine a match probability for the target user based on the determined modulation factor, wherein the match probability represents a likelihood that an identity of the requesting target user matches the authenticating identity; and
grant the requesting target user access to the secured asset in response to determining that
the match probability is greater than the operational security threshold.
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising stored computer-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
receive a candidate signal transmitted from a computing device located near a secured asset, wherein the computing device transmits the signal in response to a target user requesting access to the secured asset;
compare the candidate signal to a cluster of signals measured during past successful authentications by the computing device to determine a modulation factor, wherein comparing the candidate signal to a cluster of signals comprises comparing one or more statistical metrics for the candidate signal to one or more statistical metrics for the cluster of signals, the one or more statistical metrics of the candidate signal comprising a mean strength of the candidate signal and the one or more statistical metrics of the cluster of signals comprising a mean strength of the cluster of signals;
determine a match probability for the target user based on the determined modulation factor, wherein the match probability represents a likelihood that an identity of the requesting target user matches an authenticating identity associated with access credentials recorded at the secured asset; and
grant the requesting target user access to the secured asset in response to determining that the match probability is greater than a security threshold.
Independent claims 7 and 13 are rejected similarly to above claim 1 as claim 7 and 13 are anticipated by patent claims 7 and 13, respectively.
Dependent claims 2, 8, and 14 are anticipated by patent claims 2, 8, and 14, respectively.
Dependent claims 3, 9, and 15 are anticipated by claims 3, 9, and 15, respectively.
Dependent claims 4, 10, and 16 are anticipated by claims 4, 10, and 16, respectively.
Dependent claims 5, 11, and 17 are anticipated by claims 5, 11, and 17, respectively.
Dependent claims 6, 12, and 18 are anticipated by claims 6, 12, and 18, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 9-10, 15-16 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 and pending Double Patenting rejection is overcome with filing of terminal disclaimer or amending claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior arts of record and further search does not teach the following limitations of claim 3 - “determine one or more statistical metrics for the candidate signal, wherein the one or more statistical metrics comprises a mean strength of the candidate signal; determine one or more statistical metrics for the cluster of signals, wherein the one or more statistical metrics comprises a mean strength of the cluster of signals; and compare the one or more statistical metrics for the candidate signal to the one or more statistical metrics for the cluster of signals to determine whether the candidate signal matches the cluster of signals.”
Claims 9 and 15 include similar limitations as claim 3 and thus are allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4, 10, and 16 are dependent on claim 3, 9, and 15, respectively and are objected in the similar manner as in claims 3, 9, and 16, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEE SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3260. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon – Fri, 7:30 AM – 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-7291.
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.
/HEE K SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497