DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to application no. 19/012,658, filed 7 January 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered below.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “corresponding to the each trading condition” is grammatically incorrect. The Examiner suggests “corresponding to each trading condition”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims lie within statutory categories of invention, as each is directed to a method (process), non-transitory computer readable medium (manufacture), or device (machine). The claim(s) recite(s) identifying an input in no particular manner, identifying a data set in no particular manner but based on the input, gathering data (a “first trading condition match rate”, and providing output. All of this is within the context of providing information about asset trading.
First, this recites a fundamental business practice and a commercial interaction, each of which is among the “certain methods of organizing human activity” deemed abstract. Brokers and wealth managers routinely gather customer requirements, track data and provide information to their customers, and did so long before there was any such thing as a computer.
Second, in the absence of computers, these are steps that can be performed mentally and by consulting paper records. A broker can gather inputs verbally or by looking at paper records, can identify a relevant data set by observation, and can communicate a result to a client verbally or by writing it on a paper. None of this presents any practical difficulty and none requires any technology beyond a pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer, discussed below, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment of generic, networked computers. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As the claims only manipulate data relating to stock trades and conditions thereof, they do not improve the “functioning of a computer” or of “any other technology or technical field”. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea “with, or by use of a particular machine”, MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a “transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing”, MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such data, being intangible, are not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea “in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment”, MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim to patent eligibility.
Claim 19, which has the most, includes a processor and a memory configured to store instructions. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification is clear, e.g. ¶ 44, that nothing more than “general-purpose elements” are required, which encompasses a generic computer. It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating data and sharing data with persons and/or other devices. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim elements when considered as an ordered combination – a generic computer performing a possibly-chronological sequence of abstract steps – do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually.
The other independent claims are simply different embodiments but are likewise directed to a generic computer performing, essentially, the same process. The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 2 and 20 simply recite additional data gathering. Claims 3-9 and 17 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated. Claims 10-12, 15 and 16 simply recite further, abstract manipulation of data, and claims 13 and 14 simply recite additional input and output.
The claims are not patent eligible. For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 – 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019)).
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)(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, 2 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DePetris et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0005022).
With regard to Claim 1:
A method of providing information by an electronic device, [0006; a computer is used] the method comprising:
identifying a set input of a user for a first stock at a first time point; [0106; participants may “report manually negotiated securities loans”; 0254; users may enter and modify orders; 0159; such offers may be “requests for a particular stock at a particular price”]
based on a first trading condition set corresponding to the user and the set input, identifying a first data set corresponding to the first stock at the first time point;
based on the first trading condition set and the first data set, obtaining a first trading condition match rate at the first time point; [0360; communications are provided based on “filtering criteria”; claim 1; a “matched trade” is sent to a clearing house] and
providing information on a final trading condition match rate determined based on the first trading condition match rate to the user. [claim 1; the system “performs a novation in which first and second contracts are substituted for the matched trade”]
In this and the subsequent claims, the content of information that is merely transmitted and then not further processed, such as “information on a final trading condition match rate determined based on the first trading condition match rate to the user”, consist entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining of the first trading condition match rate at the first time point comprises:
based on data corresponding to each trading condition included in the first trading condition set among the first data set, obtaining one or more sub-condition match rates corresponding to the each trading condition; and
based on the one or more sub-condition match rates, obtaining the first trading condition match rate. [0314; multiple conditions may be at play and if “several prices meet these conditions, then the price closest to the previous equilibrium price is used”]
With regard to Claim 16:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
based on a second trading condition set, identifying a second data set corresponding to the set input; and
based on the second trading condition set and the second data set, obtaining a fourth trading condition match rate at the first time point,
wherein the final trading condition match rate is determined further based on the fourth trading condition match rate.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of a mere duplication of parts, simply adding an additional trading condition set and trading condition match rate. This does not distinguish over the art, as no new and unexpected result is inherent or disclosed. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
With regard to Claim 17:
The method of claim 16, wherein the final trading condition match rate is determined as an average value of the first trading condition match rate and the fourth trading condition match rate or a highest value of the first trading condition match rate and the fourth trading condition match rate. [0386; an “average trade size” is used; 0322; a price at the “highest level” may be selected]
With regard to Claim 18:
DePetris teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having a program for executing a method on a computer, [0095; a computer includes “software for performing its instructions” and “suitable memory”] the method comprising:
identifying a set input of a user for a first stock at a first time point; [0106; participants may “report manually negotiated securities loans”; 0254; users may enter and modify orders; 0159; such offers may be “requests for a particular stock at a particular price”]
based on a first trading condition set corresponding to the user and the set input, identifying a first data set corresponding to the first stock at the first time point;
based on the first trading condition set and the first data set, obtaining a first trading condition match rate at the first time point; [0360; communications are provided based on “filtering criteria”; claim 1; a “matched trade” is sent to a clearing house] and
providing information on a final trading condition match rate determined based on the first trading condition match rate to the user. [claim 1; the system “performs a novation in which first and second contracts are substituted for the matched trade”]
With regard to Claim 19:
An electronic device comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory configured to store one or more instructions executed by the one or more processors,
wherein the one or more processors are configured, by executing the one or more instructions, [0095; a computer includes “software for performing its instructions” and “suitable memory”] to:
identify a set input of a user for a first stock at a first time point; [0106; participants may “report manually negotiated securities loans”; 0254; users may enter and modify orders; 0159; such offers may be “requests for a particular stock at a particular price”]
based on a first trading condition set corresponding to the user and the set input, identify a first data set corresponding to the first stock at the first time point;
based on the first trading condition set and the first data set, obtain a first trading condition match rate at the first time point; [0360; communications are provided based on “filtering criteria”; claim 1; a “matched trade” is sent to a clearing house] and
provide information on a final trading condition match rate determined based on the first trading condition match rate to the user. [claim 1; the system “performs a novation in which first and second contracts are substituted for the matched trade”]
With regard to Claim 20:
The electronic device of claim 19, wherein the obtaining of the first trading condition match rate at the first time point comprises:
based on data corresponding to each trading condition included in the first trading condition set among the first data set, obtaining one or more sub-condition match rates corresponding to the each trading condition; and
based on the one or more sub-condition match rates, obtaining the first trading condition match rate. [0314; multiple conditions may be at play and if “several prices meet these conditions, then the price closest to the previous equilibrium price is used”]
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) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePetris et al. in view of Taylor et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0364791).
With regard to Claim 3:
The method of claim 2, wherein a first trading condition among the first trading condition set includes a condition regarding whether a moving average line is arranged in a set arrangement order,
wherein the first data set includes data about an arrangement order of one or more moving average lines regarding the first stock at the first time point, and
wherein a first sub-condition match rate corresponding to the first trading condition among the one or more sub-condition match rates is determined based on a number of arrangements match between the arrangement order of the one or more moving average lines and the set arrangement order.
DePetris teaches the method of claim 2 including the use of sub-condition match rates as cited above, but do es not explicitly teach the use of moving averages, but it is known in the art. Taylor teaches a method of distributing trading signals based on financial market data. [title] It keeps track of “quote and trade event data from all markets” in a “machine-readable format”. [0130] It presents a “moving average” over several different time windows such as 2 minutes, 2 hours and 5 days. [0133-0135] Moving averages over an interval are in time order, as would have been known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Such data may be presented graphically. [Sheet 23, Fig. 34A] The averages are used in “feature compute stages”. [0144] An average may be improving relative to a metric. [0321] Order information may be available in a reduced granularity (“sliced more finely”) as a data point approaches an average. [0200] Taylor and DePetris are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing trading data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Taylor with that of DePetris in order to improve efficiency, as taught by Taylor; [0006] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply basing a decision on the moving averages of Taylor in place of, or in addition to, the data of DePetris; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 4:
The method of claim 2, wherein a second trading condition among the first trading condition set includes a condition regarding whether a desired trading price is located above or below a moving average line, [Taylor, 0321 as cited above in regard to claim 3]
wherein the first data set includes data about a first price corresponding to the set input and data about one or more moving average lines regarding the first stock at the first time point, [id.] and
wherein a second sub-condition match rate corresponding to the second trading condition among the one or more sub-condition match rates is determined based on a number of moving average lines lower than the first price among the one or more moving average lines. [0132; the target price is less than a value ($25,000); Sheet 23, Fig. 34A; one can tell by looking at the graph that the line has points above and below $25,000]
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePetris et al. in view of Helweg (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0030976)
With regard to Claim 5:
The method of claim 2, wherein a third trading condition among the first trading condition set includes a condition regarding a disparity rate of a moving average line,
wherein the first data set includes data about one or more moving average values regarding the first stock at the first time point, and
wherein a third sub-condition match rate corresponding to the third trading condition among the one or more sub-condition match rates is determined based on an average value of a variation ratio between an average value of the one or more moving average values and each of the one or more moving average values.
DePetris teaches the method of claim 2 but does not explicitly teach this use of moving averages, but it is known in the art. Helweg teaches a system for price evaluation of articles of commerce, [title] which includes “stocks, bonds” and other “financial instruments”. [0002] A moving average “lags behind” a certain data point by a certain quantity. [0069] The moving average is subject to “rapid shocks or other anomalies”. [0100] Steps can be taken to smooth or minimize the anomalies, [0069] as well as to manage an instrument being in an “overvalued or undervalued condition”. [0027] The system is used to assist traders in the “making of a trading decision”. [0006] Helweg and DePetris are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing the trading of financial instruments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Helweg with that of DePetris in order to assist traders, as taught by Helweg; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply basing a decision on Helweg’s condition instead of, or in addition to, the criteria of DePetris; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePetris et al. in view of Veloso et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0078644, filed 1 September 2022)
With regard to Claim 6:
The method of claim 2, wherein a fourth trading condition among the first trading condition set includes a condition regarding whether a candle is a positive candle or a negative candle,
wherein the first data set includes data about a first candle of the first stock at the first time point, and
wherein a fourth sub-condition match rate corresponding to the fourth trading condition among the one or more sub-condition match rates has a set first value when the first candle is a candle of a type set as the fourth trading condition between the positive candle and the negative candle and has a set second value when the first candle is not the candle of the type set as the fourth trading condition.
DePetris teaches the method of claim 2, but does not explicitly teach this use of candles, but it is known in the art. Veloso teaches a system for forecasting a time series. [title] It manages situations regarding a “stock price” in the context of “trading”. [0087] It may display a “white candlestick” when a “time series experiences a positive trend” and a “black candlestick” when the time series “experiences a negative trend”. [0110] Veloso and DePetris are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing data relating to the trading of assets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Veloso with that of DePetris in order to determine accuracy and precision of a forecast, as taught by Veloso; [0035] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply interpreting and visualizing data in the manner of Veloso rather than that of DePetris; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 2 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
The applicant has not defined or explained “candle”. The broadest reasonable interpretation, in this context, is a visualization of data which changes over time, and the Examiner will interpret it as such. The Examiner will interpret “positive candle” as a visualization of increasing data, and “negative candle” as a visualization of decreasing data.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePetris et al. in view of Smyth (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0327556).
With regard to Claim 7:
The method of claim 2, wherein a fifth trading condition among the first trading condition set includes a condition regarding a ratio of a current trading volume to an immediately previous trading volume,
wherein the first data set includes data about a first trading volume of the first stock at the first time point and data about a second trading volume of the first stock at a time point earlier than the first time point by a set time unit, and
wherein a fifth sub-condition match rate corresponding to the fifth trading condition among the one or more sub-condition match rates is determined based on a ratio between the first trading volume and the second trading volume.
DePetris teaches the method of claim 2 but does not explicitly teach using relative trading volumes, but it is known in the art. Smyth teaches a relevance-driven feed for financial market data. [title] A “price increase” may be related to a “trading volume”. [0004] There may be a “volatility” between a “one day volume” and a longer term trend such as a “trailing 30 day” interval. [0012] A user may provide different weights to different factors such as a “50% weighting for volume” to determine which financial instruments are relevant. [0027] All of this information may be used to compute “relevance scores”. [Sheet 3, Fig. 3] Smyth and DePetris are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing information related to trades of financial instruments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Smyth with that of DePetris in order to improve relevance of what is presented to traders, as taught by Smyth; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply interpreting data in the manner of Smyth rather than that of DePetris; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 2 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePetris et al. in view of Patel et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0233027, filed 6 January 2023).
With regard to Claim 8:
The method of claim 2, wherein a sixth trading condition among the first trading condition set includes a condition regarding a reference value corresponding to a first technical indicator,
wherein the first data set includes data about a third value corresponding to the first technical indicator of the first stock at the first time point,
wherein a sixth sub-condition match rate corresponding to the sixth trading condition among the one or more sub-condition match rates is determined based on a value obtained by dividing a difference between the third value and the reference value by the reference value, and
wherein the first technical indicator includes at least one of a relative strength index or a stochastic index.
DePetris teaches the method of claim 2 but does not explicitly teach this use of division, but it is known in the art. Patel teaches a system for analyzing transactions of digital assets. [title] A moving average, which is a “technical indicator”, combines “price points of a financial instrument over a specified time frame and divides it by the number of data points”. [0075] A value may represent a “relative strength index” or a “stochastic oscillator”. [0012] It may assign weights based on historical performance. [0009] Patel and DePetris are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing information relating to asset trades.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Patel with that of DePetris in order to use machine learning to improve investor guidance, as taught by Patel; [0004] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply interpreting data in the manner of Patel rather than that of DePetris; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 2 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 9:
The method of claim 2, wherein, based on the one or more sub-condition match rates, the obtaining of the first trading condition match rate comprises applying a weight to each of the one or more sub-condition match rates, and
wherein the weight is determined based on at least one of:
a rate of return in trading based on a trading condition corresponding to each of the one or more sub-condition match rates; or
a number of times that the trading condition corresponding to each of the one or more sub-condition match rates is included in a trading condition set by the user. [Patel, 0009 as cited above in regard to claim 8]
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePetris et al. in view of Jackson et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0036531).
With regard to Claim 10:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing information about a first chart of a second stock to the user;
identifying a location selected by the user on the first chart; and
storing the first trading condition set generated based on a trading data set corresponding to the selected location.
DePetris teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach this use of a location, but it is known in the art. Jackson teaches an option trading system [title] in which “parameters” are associated with “position charts” in which a trader can make a decision related to an instrument’s position on the charts; the trade and instrument are related to “parameters”. [0167; Sheet 2, Fig. 2] The charts may reflect “price changes” over time. [0157] The user may input the time durations for which visibility is desired. [0175] The customer may “selectively display his own order information” which is then presented. [0018] Jackson and DePetris are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing data related to trading of assets.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Jackson with that of DePetris in order to help manage the complexity of certain types of trading, as taught by Jackson; [0023] further, it is simply a substitution of one know part for another with predictable results, simply providing the input and output of Jackson in place of, or in addition to, that of DePetris; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 11:
The method of claim 10, wherein the providing of the information about the first chart of the second stock to the user comprises:
identifying settings information inputted by the user regarding a chart indicator; and
based on the settings information, providing information about a changed first chart of the second stock to the user. [Jackson, 0157, 0175 as cited above in regard to claim 10]
With regard to Claim 12:
The method of claim 10, wherein the storing of the first trading condition set comprises:
based on the trading data set, providing a list of a plurality of trading conditions to the user;
identifying one or more trading conditions selected by the user among the plurality of trading conditions; and
generating the first trading condition set including the one or more trading conditions. [Jackson, 0018 as cited above in regard to claim 10]
Claim(s) 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePetris et al. in view of Jammalamadaka et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0311615).
These claims are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 13:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
for a set third stock, obtaining a second trading condition match rate at a second time point; and
when the second trading condition match rate is greater than or equal to a first threshold value, providing a notification to the user.
With regard to Claim 14:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
for a set fourth stock, obtaining a third trading condition match rate at a third time point; and
when the third trading condition match rate is greater than or equal to a second threshold value, transmitting a trading request for the fourth stock to a first server.
With regard to Claim 15:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
for a plurality of set stocks, obtaining a plurality of trading condition match rates at a fourth time point;
identifying one or more trading condition match rates greater than or equal to a third threshold value among the plurality of trading condition match rates; and
providing information on one or more stocks corresponding to the one or more trading condition match rates to the user.
DePetris teaches the method of claim 1 including obtaining trading condition match rates and initiating trades as cited above, but does not explicitly teach this conditional notification, but it is known in the art. Jammalamadaka teaches a system for forecast alerts. [title] It may provide various types of “alerts” or “notifications” when predictions “satisfy some threshold conditions” such as a “change greater than one standard deviation”. [0051] The data may relate to a “stock price”. [0086] Jammalamadaka and DePetris are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing data relating to financial instruments.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Jammalamadaka with that of DePetris in order to improve the performance of machine forecasting systems, as taught by Jammalamadaka; [0051] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply providing output on Jammalamadaka’s basis in place of, or in addition to, those of DePetris; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694