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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such a claim limitation is:
an image capture device in claim 1,
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation 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 to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1 recites the limitation "the instruments of interest" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-20 recite the limitation "the data acquisition system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims because independent claim 1 has been amended to a method claim and there is no recitation of a data acquisition system.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites multiple iterations of the term “the cockpit” and “the cockpit environment”. It is unclear if these two terms represent the same element or if they are different.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites “the device” in lines 8 and 10. It is unclear if this term is in reference to the previously clamed image capture device or one of the “other devices” in the preamble.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites “the image capture device comprises” in line 12. It is unclear how the image capture device, which is described in the written description as a camera, comprises “an image capture device” that is recited in line 13. Furthermore, there appears to be no mention of an image capture device comprising the data processing system and all its components in the written description. On the contrary, the image capture device and the data processing system appear to be separate devices located in the cockpit.
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walli et al. (US 20220301322 A1) in view of Feng et al. (US 20180365839 A1).
It should be noted that while the preamble of claim 1 has been amended to recite “A method for eliminating hardwire connections between sensors, instruments or data acquisition units and a flight data recorder or other devices recording flight data, comprising”, it is not considered a limitation of the claim because the body of the claim describes a "structurally complete invention" without the preamble. See MPEP 2111.02 (II).
Concerning claim 1, Walli et al. (hereinafter Walli) teaches a method, comprising: providing a cockpit with a flight data recorder (¶0027: vehicle 102 may be an aircraft; ¶0031: vehicle data collection system 120 includes a storage to record data collected from the vehicle 102 (and other assets if applicable), including location data, trip/travel histories, sensor data, and other data. Based on this description, the storage is considered a flight data recorder.); installing at least one image capture device in said cockpit (¶0034: camera 112 is positioned to capture images of an information display (e.g., dashboard or heads-up display) or another source of information that is pertinent to the operation of the vehicle 102. As vehicle 102 can be an aircraft, the information display is considered to be a cockpit), and running an intelligent setup routine (¶0037: image processing unit 114 may intelligently determine what kinds of visual data sources are withing view of the camera 112. This is considered to be an initialization of setup routine);
where the intelligent setup routine recognizes the cockpit environment and configures the image capture device to image the instruments of interest within the cockpit (¶0037: image processing unit 114 may intelligently determine what kinds of visual data sources are withing view of the camera 112. This is considered to be an initialization of setup routine); and running an instrument monitoring process (¶¶0037-0038; ¶0052); where the device images the cockpit, converts the imagery into machine-readable imagery (¶0056: optical character recognition), and simultaneously monitors multiple flight instruments within the cockpit environment (¶¶0037-0038; ¶0052); where the device is communicatively coupled with the flight data recorder (¶0031: The vehicle data collection system 120 includes storage);
where said image capture device comprises:
an image capture device positioned to capture a cockpit image of a plurality of instruments mounted in a cockpit (¶0034: camera 112); and a data processing system in data communication with the image capture device and configured to process the cockpit image to yield cockpit data, the cockpit data including a current value of one or more of the plurality of instruments captured in the cockpit image, the data processing system including: a memory unit; computer instructions stored in the memory unit (fig. 4: 406-408; ¶0060; ¶0062);
and a processor in data communication with the memory unit and the image capture device, the processor configured to execute the computer instructions to yield the cockpit data; wherein the computer instructions include instructions for the processor to: receive the cockpit image from the image capture device (¶0031: “Thus, the vehicle data collection system 120 generally includes one or more computing devices (e.g., servers, processors) to store the data and programming instructions necessary to perform the functionality described herein…”; fig. 4: 406-408; ¶0060; ¶0062),
where the processor transforms the image; where image transformation includes at least one of the following: changing the imaged from black and white to color or; from color to black and white, adjusting color balance, saturation, and brightness, reducing noise, reducing blurring; clarifying the image by correcting imperfections, or improving the difference between light and dark areas to make details more visible (¶0057); and
identifying instrument images corresponding to individual instruments in the cockpit image including a selected instrument image corresponding to a selected instrument (¶¶0037-0038; ¶0052); assign labels to the individual instrument images, including a selected instrument label corresponding to the selected instrument image (fig. 6: 618; ¶0076); determine a current value of the selected instrument based on optical data in the selected instrument image (fig. 6: 619; ¶0076); and save the current value of the selected instrument into a data record associated with the selected instrument label (fig. 6: 618, 619; ¶0076). Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein the setup routine is an AI setup routine.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Feng et al. (hereinafter Feng) teaches using deep learning (i.e., artificial intelligence (“AI”)) to automatically initialize a visual tracking system (¶0038). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the intelligent setup routine of Walli using an “AI”, as taught by Feng, because it would provide enhanced capabilities (Feng, ¶0038).
Concerning claim 2, Walli further teaches the data acquisition system of claim 1, wherein the cockpit image includes images of a plurality of instruments displaying flight-relevant data (¶0034: camera 112 is positioned to capture images of an information display (e.g., dashboard or heads-up display) or another source of information that is pertinent to the operation of the vehicle 102. As vehicle 102 can be an aircraft, the information display is considered to be a cockpit).
Concerning claim 3, Walli further teaches the data acquisition system of claim 1, wherein the computer instructions include instructions for the processor send the data to any one of the following: a flight data recorder or to a data storage system (¶0031: vehicle data collection system 120 includes a storage to record data collected from the vehicle 102 (and other assets if applicable), including location data, trip/travel histories, sensor data, and other data. Based on this description, the storage is considered a flight data recorder.).
Concerning claim 4, Walli further teaches the data acquisition system of claim 1, wherein:
the image capture device is configured to capture cockpit images at specified intervals (¶0055: As another example, an image processing model may be associated with a set of instructions that requests that an image be captured periodically (e.g., an image processing model for speedometer may be associated with a set of instructions that the camera 302 is to capture an image every second, every thirty seconds, or every sixty seconds)); and
the processor is configured to execute the computer instructions to yield the cockpit data for each cockpit image captured at the specified intervals (¶0055).
Concerning claim 7, Walli further teaches the data acquisition system of claim 1, wherein the computer instructions further include instructions for the processor to request that a user select the selected instrument (fig. 5; ¶¶0066-0068).
Concerning claim 8, Walli further teaches the data acquisition system of claim 1, wherein:
multiple instrument images are selected for processing (¶¶0037-0038; ¶0052); and
the computer instructions include instructions for the processor to determine current values of each individual instrument in the multiple instrument images (¶¶0037-0038; ¶0052).
Concerning claim 9, Walli further teaches the data acquisition system of claim 8, wherein the computer instructions further include instructions for the processor to save the current values of each individual instrument into data records associated with each individual instrument (fig. 6: 618, 619; ¶0076).
Concerning claim 10, Walli further teaches the data acquisition system of claim 1, wherein:
the cockpit image includes a plurality of controls of the cockpit (¶0055: “set of instructions for the camera 302 to capture an image when the vehicle shifts from park to drive”, because vehicle 102 may be an aircraft it is implied that a plurality of controls associated with an aircraft can be monitored); and
the cockpit data includes a current setting of one or more of the plurality of controls in the cockpit image (¶0055).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walli et al. (US 20220301322 A1) in view of Feng et al. (US 20180365839 A1) and Cowper et al. (WO 2015124939 A1).
Concerning claim 5, Walli in view of Feng teaches the method of claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein: the image capture device is configured to associate a timestamp with each cockpit image corresponding to when each cockpit image was captured; and the computer instructions include instructions for the processor to save the timestamp in the data record for the current value of the selected instrument.
However, Cowper teaches wherein: the image capture device is configured to associate a timestamp with each cockpit image corresponding to when each cockpit image was captured (Cowper, p. 3, ll. 10-14); and the computer instructions include instructions for the processor to save the timestamp in the data record for the current value of the selected instrument (Cowper, p. 3, ll. 10-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Cowper in the Walli and Feng invention because the result would allow for associating time stamps with vehicle telemetry signals (Cowper, p. 3, ll. 10-14).
Claims 6 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walli et al. (US 20220301322 A1) in view of Feng et al. (US 20180365839 A1) and Weinmann et al. (US 20100214130 A1).
Concerning claim 6, Walli in view of Feng teaches the method of claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein determining a current value of the selected instrument includes: identifying a minimum value of the selected instrument in the selected instrument image; identifying a maximum value of the selected instrument in the selected instrument image; identifying a minimum value position of the selected instrument in the selected instrument image; identifying a maximum value position of the selected instrument in the selected instrument image; identifying a current dial position of the selected instrument in the selected instrument image; and interpolating the current value of the selected instrument relative to the minimum value and the maximum value based on the current dial position relative to the minimum value position and the maximum value position.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Weinmann et al. (hereinafter Weinmann) teaches wherein determining a current value of the selected instrument includes:
identifying a minimum value of the selected instrument in the selected instrument image (¶0056, ¶0071: identifying the lower limits and range of travel information for the corresponding object type);
identifying a maximum value of the selected instrument in the selected instrument image (¶0056, ¶0071: identifying the upper limits and range of travel information for the corresponding object type);
identifying a minimum value position of the selected instrument in the selected instrument image (¶0056, ¶0071: identifying the lower limits and range of travel information of a “needle” (see, ¶0072) for the corresponding object type);
identifying a maximum value position of the selected instrument in the selected instrument image (¶0056, ¶0071: identifying the upper limits and range of travel information of a “needle” (see, ¶0072) for the corresponding object type);
identifying a current dial position of the selected instrument in the selected instrument image (¶0071); and
interpolating the current value of the selected instrument relative to the minimum value and the maximum value based on the current dial position relative to the minimum value position and the maximum value position (¶0056, ¶0071: comparing the current “needle” position to the identified upper and lower limits to determine the gauge value). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Weinmann in the Walli and Feng invention because the result would allow for identification of the possible range of movement of the instruments and for determining the upper and lower values of said instruments.
Concerning claim 11, Walli in view of Feng teaches the method of claim 10. Wall further teaches the method, assigning labels to images corresponding to individual instruments in the cockpit image including a selected instrument image to a selected instrument (fig. 6: 618, 619; ¶0076). Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein the computer instructions include instructions for the processor to: identify control images corresponding to individual controls in the cockpit image including a selected control image corresponding to a selected control; assign labels to the individual control images, including a selected control label corresponding to the selected control; determine a current setting of the selected control based on optical data in the selected control image; and save the current setting of the selected control into a data record associated with the selected control label.
Weinmann teaches wherein the computer instructions include instructions for the processor to:
identify control images corresponding to individual controls in the cockpit image including a selected control image corresponding to a selected control (Weinmann, ¶0031: operator controls and/or input devices may be considered part of the instrument panel; ¶¶0065-0066: identifying each object of interest (corresponding to the claimed selected instrument);
determine a current setting of the selected control based on optical data in the selected control image (Weinmann, figs. 9 and 10: step 960); and
save the current setting of the selected control into a data record associated with the selected control label (Weinmann, ¶0073: the gauge value is combined with other data consisting of a time/date stamp, the location and orientation of the vehicle in three-dimensional space corresponding to the time/date stamp, and the value of the gauge (or other object of interest) corresponding to the time/date stamp. The gauge value is inherently saved in order to use it in further processing (e.g., triggering events (fig. 10: step 1030) and in order to transmit the received values off-board to other devices through a wide area network (¶0076). Furthermore, the values are inherently saved into data records to improve flight safety, increase maintenance effectiveness, and reduce operational costs (¶0077)). Incorporating the teachings of Weinmann into Walli and Feng, one of ordinary skill in the art would further understand that the labeling techniques of Walli can be applied to the control images. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Walli, Feng and Weinmann further teach assigning labels to the individual control images, including a selected control label corresponding to the selected control.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Weinmann in the Walli and Feng invention because the result would allow for monitoring operator controls of the vehicle.
Concerning claim 12, Weinmann further teaches the data acquisition system of claim 11, wherein determining a current value of the selected instrument includes:
identifying a minimum position of the selected control in the selected control image (¶0056, ¶0071: identifying the lower limits and range of travel information of a “needle” (see, ¶0072) for the corresponding object type);
identifying a maximum position of the selected control in the selected control image (¶0056, ¶0071: identifying the upper limits and range of travel information of a “needle” (see, ¶0072) for the corresponding object type);
assigning a first control setting value to the minimum position of the selected control (¶0056, ¶0071: identifying the lower limits and range of travel information for the corresponding object type);
assigning a second control setting value to the maximum position of the selected control (¶0056, ¶0071: identifying the upper limits and range of travel information for the corresponding object type);
identifying a current position of the selected control in the selected control image (¶0071); and
determining the current setting of the selected control relative to the first control setting and the second control setting based on the current position of the selected control relative to the minimum position and the maximum position (¶0056, ¶0071: comparing the current “needle” position to the identified upper and lower limits to determine the gauge value).
Concerning claim 13, Weinmann further teaches the data acquisition system of claim 11, wherein the control images correspond to controls used to control operation of an aircraft (¶¶0031, ¶0034, ¶0038: levers, gauges, knobs, switches, and pushbuttons).
Concerning claim 14, Weinmann further teaches the data acquisition system of claim 11, wherein the control images include an image of a toggle switch (¶¶0031, ¶0034, ¶0038: levers, gauges, knobs, switches, and pushbuttons).
Concerning claim 15, Weinmann further teaches the data acquisition system of claim 11, wherein the control images include an image of a slider control (¶¶0031, ¶0034, ¶0038: levers, gauges, knobs, switches, and pushbuttons).
Concerning claim 16, Weinmann further teaches the data acquisition system of claim 11, herein the control images include an image of a push-pull control (¶¶0031, ¶0034, ¶0038: gauges, levers, knobs, switches, and pushbuttons).
Concerning claim 17, Weinmann further teaches the data acquisition system of claim 11, wherein the control images include an image of a rotary dial control (¶¶0031, ¶0034, ¶0038: gauges, levers, knobs, switches, and pushbuttons).
Concerning claim 18, Weinmann further teaches the data acquisition system of claim 11, wherein the instrument images include an image of an attitude indicator (¶¶0031, ¶0034, ¶0038: gauges, levers, knobs, switches, and pushbuttons).
Concerning claim 19, Weinmann further teaches the data acquisition system of claim 11, wherein the instrument images include an image of a dial indicator (¶¶0031, ¶0034, ¶0038: gauges, levers, knobs, switches, and pushbuttons).
Concerning claim 20, Weinmann further teaches the data acquisition system of claim 11, wherein the instrument images include an image of a heading indicator (¶¶0031, ¶0034, ¶0038: gauges, levers, knobs, switches, and pushbuttons).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 of the remarks, filed 07/28/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11 of the remarks, filed 07/28/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103, but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)270-1444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN PENDLETON can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/James M Anderson II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425