DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed on April 15, 2025, in which claims 1-51 have been canceled. Claims 52-71 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 52-71 are pending and being presented for examination.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 52-71 are pending, of which claims 52, 55-57, 61, 62, 65-67 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Claims 53, 54, 58-60, 63, 64 and 68-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Priority
4. Examiner has acknowledged Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed United States Patent Application Serial No. 17/539,577, filed December 1, 2021, United States Patent Application Serial No. 17/137,286, filed December 29, 2020, United States Patent Application Serial No. 16/787,898, filed February 11, 2020, and United States Patent Application Serial No. 15/785,826, filed October 17, 2017.
Examiner’s Note on Subject Matter Eligibility
5. Independent claim 52 has been evaluated and determined to be patent eligible. Although claim 52 recites, inter alia, “determining, based at least in part on metadata of the content item, that the first segment is associated with a first content rating and the second segment is associated with a second content rating, wherein the first content rating associated with the first segment indicates a first recommended audience for which the first segment is suitable and the second content rating associated with the second segment indicates a second recommended audience for which the second segment is suitable; and determining, based at least in part on a comparison of the first content rating and the second content rating to a threshold content rating, that the first segment does not comply with the threshold content rating and the second content rating complies with the threshold content rating,” which points to an abstract idea type of judicial exception, namely, a mental process, nevertheless, in evaluating step 2B, the final limitation of “based at least in part on determining that the first segment does not comply with the threshold content rating and the second content rating complies with the threshold content rating, fetching the second segment for output at the device and not fetching the first segment for output at the device,” was determined to not merely recite extra solution activity, but rather, to result in an inventive concept, at least in so much as this limitation 1.) is neither evidenced by one of the court decisions under Berkheimer Option 2, nor one of the of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d), subsection II, and 2.) similar to DDR Holdings, the claim at issue here specifies how interactions with the content segments are manipulated to yield a desired result - a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by receiving a user input requesting to access content at a device. As a whole, the additional limitations amount to “significantly more,” in that the claim results in an inventive concept which reduces bandwidth consumption at the user device by precluding the user from fetching content that the user is not interested in anyway, based on their preferences and associated content ratings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 52, 55-57, 61, 62, 65-67 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Satish Nandi (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0311625 A1), hereinafter “Nandi”.
Regarding claim 62, Nandi discloses a system (system 100) (Nandi, FIG. 1) comprising: control circuitry (wherein the content manager 110 and player 109 of FIG. 1, as well as content rating device 602 illustrated in FIG. 6, each may comprise computer-executable software code that is stored to a computer-readable medium and is executed by a processor-based computing device for performing the corresponding operations. The processor-based computing device is disclosed as including a general-purpose processor such as a microprocessor, or alternatively, any conventional processor, controller, microcontroller, or state machine) (Nandi, FIG. 1 and FIG. 6, paragraph [0072]) configured to: receive user input requesting to access a content item at a device (wherein user may request to download/render/playback work 101) (Nandi, paragraphs [0030], [0044] and [0053]), wherein the content item comprises a first segment and a second segment (wherein the work 100 is comprised of several segments) (Nandi, Abstract, FIG. 1, paragraphs [0030] and [0043]); determine, based at least in part on metadata of the content item (wherein the content has content rating information (e.g., tags) 1041-1044, which may be embedded with the content of work 101, such as within packet headers, tags, cues, as metadata) (Nandi, FIG. 1, paragraphs [0026] and [0048]), that the first segment is associated with a first content rating and the second segment is associated with a second content rating (again, each segment having a content rating, defined by a tag) (Nandi, FIG. 1, paragraphs [0026] and [0048]), wherein the first content rating associated with the first segment indicates a first recommended audience for which the first segment is suitable (wherein the content rating information for each segment may be based on any criteria that indicates the suitability of the content for certain audiences, e.g., a first segment may be rated “G”. Examiner notes these are only examples, and Nandi suggests that any segment can be assigned any rating, e.g., first segment could be rated “R”) (Nandi, paragraphs [0045] and [0049]) and the second content rating associated with the second segment indicates a second recommended audience for which the second segment is suitable (wherein again, the content rating information for each segment may be based on any criteria that indicates the suitability of the content for certain audiences, e.g., a second segment may be rated “R”. Again, Examiner points out that these are only examples, and Nandi suggests that any segment can be assigned any rating, e.g., second segment could be rated “G”) (Nandi, paragraphs [0045] and [0049]); determine, based at least in part on a comparison of the first content rating and the second content rating to a threshold content rating (at least impliedly/suggested, as Nandi teaches that content manager 110 may cause player 109 to replace certain offending segments in work 101 that exceed the user’s minimal settings (as defined in preference settings 111) with alternative content--e.g., a “cleaner” version of the content or an advertisement, etc.) (Nandi, paragraph [0057]), that the first segment does not comply with the threshold content rating and the second content rating complies with the threshold content rating (again, determining whether ratings exceed preferences of the user. Only those segments that exceed preferences are skipped/replaced. For instance, Nandi teaches that in the example illustrated in FIG. 1, a first alternative segment for the R-rated segment 1033 is provided as alternative segment 105, which is assigned a corresponding content rating tag 106, indicating that its content is rated “PG-13”. Additionally, a second alternative segment for the R-rated segment 1033 is provided as alternative segment 107, which is assigned a corresponding content rating tag 108, indicating that its content is rated “PG”. Thus, if content manager 110 detects that segment 1033 is unsuitable for playback, it may determine whether either of the alternative segments 105 and 107 are suitable (based on the user’s preferences and the alternative segments’ respective content ratings)) (Nandi, FIG. 1, paragraph [0057]); and based at least in part on determining that the first segment does not comply with the threshold content rating and the second content rating complies with the threshold content rating, fetch the second segment for output at the device and not fetch the first segment for output at the device (again, from the example above, if segment 1033 is not suitable based on the user’s preferences and its content rating, e.g., if segment 1033 is rated “R,” content manager may determine whether either of the alternative segments 105 and 107 are suitable (based on the user’s preferences and the alternative segments’ respective content ratings)) (Nandi, FIG. 1, paragraph [0057]).
As to claim 65, Nandi discloses the system of claim 62, wherein: the first segment is a first version of the first segment (wherein again, there may be alternate, “cleaner” versions of certain segments, e.g., 1033 has two alternate versions) (Nandi, FIG. 1, paragraph [0057]); determining that the first content rating of the first segment does not comply with the threshold content rating is based at least in part on audio of the first segment (wherein Nandi further teaches that there may be different/separate ratings for different types of content contained in work 101, such as independent ratings for audio and video portions of the audiovisual work. In this way, the video portion of the audiovisual work may have a different rating from the corresponding audio portion that plays at the same time as the video portion. Thus, for instance, while segment 1031 is shown in FIG. 1 as being assigned a content rating tag 1041 (indicating a “G” content rating), in certain embodiments segment 1031 may have a first content rating tag indicating the content rating for its visual portion (video) and a second content rating tag indicating the content rating for its audio portion) (Nandi, FIG. 1, paragraph [0051]), and the control circuitry is further configured to fetch an alternate second version of the first segment instead of the first version of the first segment (wherein again, the video and audio portions may be managed independently by content manager 110. For instance, if the video portion has a rating that does not exceed the preference of the viewing audience but the corresponding audio portion does have a rating that exceeds the preference of the viewing audience (e.g., the video is “clean” but the language used in the corresponding audio portion of the movie is offensive), then only the audio portion may be skipped (e.g., silenced) or replaced (e.g., with different, “cleaner” language)) (Nandi, FIG. 1, paragraph [0051]), the alternate second version of the first segment having different audio than the first version of the first segment (again, only the audio portion may be skipped (e.g., silenced) or replaced (e.g., with different, “cleaner” language)) (Nandi, FIG. 1, paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 66, Nandi discloses the system of claim 65, wherein the first segment and the second segment each correspond to respective lyrics of a song corresponding to the content item (at least impliedly/suggested, as Nandi teaches that an original song may be modified to create a “clean” version to make the explicit lyrics contained in the original song unintelligible or to replace the explicit lyrics with different “clean” lyrics, and notes that the described concepts may likewise be applied to other types of individual works, particularly non-programmatic works, like song recordings or other audio works) (Nandi, paragraphs [0012] and [0071]).
Regarding claim 67, Nandi discloses the system of claim 62, wherein the threshold content rating is determined by a user preference of a profile associated with the device (wherein content manager 110 may thus manage the playback of work 101 based on the user's preference settings (or “profile”) 111 and the content rating tags assigned to the various segments of work 101) (Nandi, paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 71, Nandi discloses the system of claim 62, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to generate for display at the device the second segment and not the first segment (wherein again, the “cleaner” version is output for playback) (Nandi, paragraphs [0030] and [0057]).
Claims 52, 55-57 and 61 include “method” claims that perform limitations substantially as recited in “system” claims 62, 65-67 and 71, respectively, and do not appear to contain any additional features with regard to novelty and/or nonobviousness; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 53, 54, 63 and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nandi in view of Ma et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0230003 A1), hereinafter “Ma”.
Regarding claim 63, Nandi discloses the system of claim 62, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a manifest file comprises the metadata that indicates the first content rating for the first segment and the second content rating for the second segment. However in an analogous art, Ma discloses wherein a manifest file comprises metadata that indicates a first content rating for a first segment and a second content rating for a second segment (wherein Ma discloses that a “network personal video recorder” or “npvr” manifest will include rating information in comments associated with each segment of content) (Ma, paragraphs [0022], [0023] and [0030]). Nandi and Ma are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area, namely, content delivery. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nandi and Ma before him or her, to modify the system of Nandi to include the additional limitation of wherein a manifest file comprises metadata that indicates a first content rating for a first segment and a second content rating for a second segment, as disclosed by Ma, with reasonable expectation that this would result in more informative selection enable selection from among the encodings in rendering the program at the media player (See Ma, paragraph [0005]). This method of improving the system of Nandi was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ma. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nandi with Ma to obtain the invention as specified in claim 63.
Regarding claim 64, Nandi-Ma discloses the system of claim 63, wherein the second segment is fetched for output at the device by way of the manifest file (wherein the segments are fetched from the npvr manifest) (Ma, paragraphs [0107]-[0112]). As discussed and shown above, Nandi and Ma are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area, namely, content delivery. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nandi and Ma before him or her, to modify the system of Nandi to include the additional limitation of wherein the second segment is fetched for output at the device by way of the manifest file, as disclosed by Ma, with reasonable expectation that this would result in the ability to selectively render the content at the media player/user device, as well as the ability to select from different encodings, at different locations using the manifest (See Ma, paragraphs [0005] and [0007]). This method of improving the system of Nandi was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ma. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nandi with Ma to obtain the invention as specified in claim 64.
Claims 53 and 54 include “method” claims that perform limitations substantially as recited in “system” claims 63 and 64, respectively, and do not appear to contain any additional features with regard to novelty and/or nonobviousness; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
11. Claims 58 and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nandi in view of Martin et al. (United States Patent No. US 8,818,343 B1), hereinafter “Martin”.
As to claim 68, Nandi discloses the system of claim 62, but does not expressly disclose wherein the threshold content rating is determined by a content provider. However in analogous art, Martin discloses wherein a threshold content rating is determined by a content provider (wherein Martin teaches that a content provider, such as content provider 54 (shown in FIGS. 1 and 2), can provide a content rating for requested resources. By way of example, if the content provider 54 engages in session-setup signaling to set up a session (e.g., streaming media or real time transport protocol (“RTP”)) through which to deliver the requested content, the content provider 54 could specify the content rating as a parameter in a session-setup message) (Martin, col. 11, ll. 20-27). Nandi and Martin are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area, namely, content delivery. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nandi and Martin before him or her, to modify the system of Nandi to include the additional limitation of wherein a threshold content rating is determined by a content provider, as disclosed by Martin, with reasonable expectation that this would result in removing the burden of labeling content from the end user (See Martin, col. 1, ll. 12-22). This method of improving the system of Nandi was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Martin. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nandi with Martin to obtain the invention as specified in claim 68.
Claim 58 includes a “method” claim that performs limitations substantially as recited in “system” claim 68, and does not appear to contain any additional features with regard to novelty and/or nonobviousness; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
12. Claims 59, 60, 69 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nandi in view of O’Hare et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0006752 A1), hereinafter “O’Hare”.
Regarding claim 69, Nandi discloses the system of claim 62, but does not expressly disclose wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: based at least in part on determining that the first segment does not comply with the threshold content rating and the second content rating complies with the threshold content rating, buffer the second segment and not buffering the first segment. In an analogous art, however, O’Hare discloses based at least in part on determining that a first segment does not comply with a threshold content rating and a second content rating complies with the threshold content rating, buffer the second segment and not buffering the first segment (wherein O’Hare teaches that a metadata file 418 (See FIG. 4) can comprise identifiers for each content segment and identifiers for the content itself, of which the content segments are a part. In particular, O’Hare teaches that the metadata file 418 can comprise a rating value. For example, the rating value can be compared to a maximum acceptable rating by a user. If the rating value of a content segment exceeds the maximum acceptable rating, the content segment can be replaced. The metadata file 418 can comprise other information such as a compression value, additional control fields, and the like. As one example, O’Hare teaches that the metadata file 418 can be updated as replacement content segments are received by a retrieval unit 420 of content device 402. In one aspect, the updating of the metadata file 418 can trigger the updating of a manifest file associated with the content. For example, if a content segment is replaced in the metadata file 418, the manifest file can be updated with information related to accessing a replacement content segment. As such, O’Hare teaches that if an offending segment is replaced from manifest, such a segment will never be sent to [and buffered at] the user device 408, as a replacement content segment will be accessed instead. Examiner notes that the claimed subject matter (as well as that disclosed by O’Hare) is taken from paragraphs [0167]-[0181] of instant Specification, with reference to FIG. 8, and which describe updating a manifest such that offending content is never sent to, or buffered at, the local device) (O’Hare, FIG. 4, paragraphs [0060]-[0061]). Nandi and O’Hare are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area, namely, content delivery. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Nandi and O’Hare before him or her, to modify the system of Nandi to include the additional limitation of based at least in part on determining that a first segment does not comply with a threshold content rating and a second content rating complies with the threshold content rating, buffer the second segment and not buffering the first segment, as disclosed by O’Hare, with reasonable expectation that this would result in appropriately updating manifest files, thereby providing users with the information needed related to accessing a replacement content segment (See O’Hare, paragraph [0061]). This method of improving the system of Nandi was well within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of O’Hare. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nandi with O’Hare to obtain the invention as specified in claim 69.
As to claim 70, Nandi-O’Hare discloses the system of claim 69, wherein, in the absence of the threshold content rating, the first segment is intended to be played prior to the second segment in a segment sequence of the content item (wherein as shown in FIG. 1, the segments 1031-1034 are in order (i.e., SEG-1, SEG-2, SEG-3, SEG-4), though not all have the same rating. That is, Nandi teaches that a first segment having a rating of “G” may have a length stretching to a subsequent portion of the content where the rating changes from “G” (e.g., to “R”). More particularly, a first segment may begin with a cue or tag indicating that the segment’s content has a “G” rating, and may continue to a point in the content of the work where a cue or tag indicates that the content changes from “G” to a different rating, such as “R”. Such a cue or tag indicating the content ratings may be embedded within the content itself (e.g., as a tag, header, etc.) or it may reside external to the content itself but accompany the content and identify locations (e.g., running-time points or other reference points within the content) where the content ratings change. A second segment having the changed rating (e.g., “R”) may then begin and stretch to a subsequent portion of the content where the rating changes again (e.g., back to “G”) at which point a third segment having the new rating begins, and so on) (Nandi, FIG. 1, paragraphs [0024] and [0045]). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 69 is also applied to claim 70.
Claims 59 and 60 include “method” claims that perform limitations substantially as recited in “system” claims 69 and 70, respectively, and do not appear to contain any additional features with regard to novelty and/or nonobviousness; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
13. Further references of interest are cited on Form PTO-892, which is an attachment to this Office Action. For example, Stockhammer (USPGPUB 2017/0156015) discloses example device for receiving audio data includes an audio decoder implemented using digital logic circuitry and configured to decode audio data conforming to MPEG-H or AC-4 part 2, and an audio data processing unit implemented in digital logic circuitry and configured to receive a manifest file describing a plurality of audio objects conforming to MPEG-H or AC-4 part 2, wherein the manifest file indicates whether each of the audio objects is available via broadcast, broadband, or both broadcast and broadband, receive selection data indicating which of the audio objects are to be presented, receive streamed media data including the audio objects based on the selection data, and provide the audio objects indicated by the selection data to the audio decoder (See Abstract). Tsai (USPGPUB 2009/0037965) discloses a system to manage video content comprises an index file management module comprising logic to, generate an index file to describe content in an associated video file, store the index file for a video file in a first memory location, separate from a second memory location in which the video file is stored, receive, from a requesting entity, a request for access to the index file, in response to the request, download the index file to the requesting entity, and download the video file to the requesting entity (See Abstract). Wu (USPGPUB 2006/0212580) discloses a method for providing customized audio/video (A/V) and animation programming over a network. The method includes configuring a server to: store a number of content files, each of the content files including A/V and/or animation data, receive a content portal page, create a personalized program based on the content portal page, the personalized program including one or more content files, and transmit the personalized program, and configuring a client to: allow a user to specify the content portal page, transmit the content portal page to the server, receive the personalized program from the server, and execute the personalized program for consumption by the user. The personalized program is executed such that the one or more content files included in the personalized program are shown to the user in a continuous manner. One type of meta data that can be included with a content file is rating meta data. The rating meta data for a content file may represent a rating assigned to the content contained in the content file. The rating is determined based on the content. For example, if the content file contains adult content, a rating of “MA” representing content suitable only for mature audience may be assigned; alternatively, if the content file content general content, a rating of “G” representing content suitable for general audience may be assigned. A rating system similar to the one applied to television broadcasts and movies may be used. Other types of rating system may be used, and the original content may already contain rating information. For example, if the original content is a movie, rating information associated with that movie may be supplied by the source. Such rating information may then be extracted by the content creation logic 140 to be included in the content file (See Abstract, paragraph [0028]). Candelore (USPGPUB 2006/0130121) discloses a nonlinear editing system comprising a video encoder, an audio compressor and an engine unit. The engine unit is adapted to synchronize the video with the first alternate video and to synchronize the audio with the first alternate audio so that, where the scene of the program includes objectionable content, either (i) the video is substituted with the first alternate video, (ii) the audio is substituted with the first alternate audio, or (iii) both the video and the audio are substituted with the first alternate video and the first alternate audio. Digital device 510 may be adapted to increase or decrease the rating of the program, and therefore the term “objectionable content” has two meanings. One meaning is that it is content featuring certain subject matter that may be inappropriate for the viewing or listening audience at this time. Another meaning is that it is low-rated content that can be substituted for higher rated content due to the mature nature of the viewing or listening audience and their request for up-rating of content (See Abstract, paragraph [0061]). West (USPGPUB 2003/0110514) discloses a system provided for managing and accessing media content received via a plurality of display channels and stored in a plurality of buffers in a storage device. The system associates the plurality of buffers with a composite buffer file. In some embodiments, the composite buffer file is configurable so that user can block, or exclude, certain content from being associated with and/or displayed from the composite buffer file. The block can be by rating or content, such as violence, sexual content, etc., as explicitly provided in IPG, in one embodiment. For example, if a user is channel surfing and runs into adult content or something rated that he or she wishes not to be accessible from the composite buffer file, it is excluded from being there. In one implementation, IPG data corresponding to a media instance is read via the PVR application 377 (FIG. 3A) in cooperation with the processor 344 to determine the media content instance rating and content from one or more records for that program (or media instance) in the IPG database (not shown). This rating and content information is specified in the IPG database, for instance, in attribute fields that have bits (or flags) assigned to content presence. One bit can be assigned to violence, another bit to language, etc. If a respective bit, such as the violence bit, is turned on, then that media instance includes violence. Likewise, there is another field that specifies one or more content ratings (X, R, PG-14, etc.). (See Abstract, FIG. 3A, paragraph [0117]).
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOSTAS J. KATSIKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm. 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 J. Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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.
/KOSTAS J KATSIKIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441