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 .
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,293,335. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations in the present claims are essentially recited in the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,293,335.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed system is claimed as a product without any structural recitations (i.e. encompasses embodiments that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se")), see MPEP 2106.03. Accordingly claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not directed to one of the four statutory categories.
To overcome this rejection, Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to recite a physical, tangible claim element (e.g., computer hardware).
Claims 1-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1-10 would be directed to a machine if amended as suggested; and claims 11-20 are directed to a process. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2.
Independent Claims
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the independent claims recite an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…receiving a plurality of recruitment listings, wherein each recruitment listing includes data indicative of job qualifications;
compiling a body of knowledge based on the received recruitment listings;
receiving a job application from a candidate, wherein the job application includes a resume and a target recruitment listing among the plurality of recruitment listings;
extracting relevant data from the resume by analyzing the resume;
providing the job application to a hiring entity corresponding to the target recruitment listing;
upon providing the job application to the hiring entity, providing the candidate with an automated status update response, indicating to the candidate that the candidate is being considered for the target recruitment listing;
receiving an acceptance/rejection communication from the hiring entity, indicating whether the candidate has been accepted or rejected for the target recruitment listing;
when the acceptance/rejection communication indicates that the candidate has been accepted for the target recruitment listing, providing the candidate with an automated acceptance update response, indicating to the candidate that the candidate has been accepted for the target recruitment listing; and
when the acceptance/rejection communication indicates that the candidate has been rejected for the target recruitment listing, providing the candidate with an automated rejection update response, indicating to the candidate that the candidate has been rejected for the target recruitment listing.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations essentially encompass steps in the recruiting or hiring process. That is, receiving recruitment listings, compiling a body of knowledge, receiving a job application, analyzing the resume, providing the job application to a hiring entity, providing the candidate with a status update, receiving an acceptance or a rejection from the hiring entity, providing the candidate with an acceptance or rejection update, as claimed, are all steps in recruiting or hiring personnel (e.g. receiving and compiling open jobs, receiving applications, analyzing the applications and determine whether to hire the applicants). Claims that encompass the recruiting or hiring process recite commercial or legal obligations. Claims that encompass commercial or legal interactions fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”. Claims 1 and 11 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1 and 11 both recite the additional elements of various steps being performed in an automated fashion. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Claim 1 furthers recite the additional elements of the system being an AI-driven job recruitment system in communication with a machine learning model. The additional elements of using the machine learning model, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (machine learning) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims. Claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and a general link to a field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and a general link to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for the following reasons.
Claims 2 and 12 essentially recite comparing rejected candidates resumes with other job openings, determining matches, and notifying the candidates of matches or no matches. These limitations recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because comparing applicants resumes and job openings and communicating with applicants is a part of the recruiting or hiring process.
Claims 2 and 12 further recite the additional elements of various steps being performed in an automated fashion. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Claims 3 and 13 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because providing career coaching to rejected applicants is a part of the recruiting hiring process (e.g., recommending ways to improve one’s resume).
Claims 4 and 14 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because using a matrix to map a user’s skills to a job requirements is a part of the recruiting or hiring process, e.g. determining what jobs are user is qualified for.
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because sending emphatic messages and sending messages based on birthdate is a part of the recruiting or hiring process (e.g. sending message of encouragement to job applicants and sending messages based on an applicant’s age).
Claims 7 and 17 recite the additional elements of receiving multiple updates at a frequency chosen by the user. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer function of receiving user settings and sending messages based on the user settings) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 recite the additional elements of transmitting employment data to an unemployment agency. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of sending data (i.e. sending user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Champaneria, US Pub. No. 2019/0114593, herein referred to as “Champaneria”.
Regarding claim 1, Champaneria teaches:
an AI-driven job recruitment system in communication with a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is configured to (matches job positions and candidates using machine learning, e.g. ¶¶[0064], [0094]; see also e.g. ¶[0054] discussing system):
receive a plurality of recruitment listings, wherein each recruitment listing includes data indicative of job qualifications (job descriptions are input, ¶[0058]; see also e.g. ¶[0016] noting job descriptions include job requirements);
compile a body of knowledge based on the received recruitment listings (job descriptions are loaded into the system, ¶[0060]; see also ¶[0069] discussing maintaining the job postings);
receive a job application from a candidate, wherein the job application includes a resume and a target recruitment listing among the plurality of recruitment listings (candidate applies for the position, ¶[0118], [0170]; see also e.g. ¶[0017] discussing resumes);
extract relevant data from the resume by analyzing the resume (parses the candidates’ resumes, ¶[0131]);
provide the job application to a hiring entity corresponding to the target recruitment listing (completed applications are submitted to a hiring manager, ¶¶[0170]-[0172]);
upon providing the job application to the hiring entity, provide the candidate with an automated status update response, indicating to the candidate that the candidate is being considered for the target recruitment listing (sends periodic updates to candidates about the status of their application, ¶[0115]; notifies candidate with invitation to apply, ¶[0106]; and candidates are notified of available timeslots for an interview, ¶[0177]; and Fig. 7, ref. char. 72; see also e.g. ¶[0116] discussing types of communications);
receive an acceptance/rejection communication from the hiring entity, indicating whether the candidate has been accepted or rejected for the target recruitment listing (sends an offer to the candidate, ¶[0190]; and Fig. 8, ref. char. 81; and sends notification candidate is being removed from the campaign, ¶[0138] and Fig. 6, ref. char. 53);
when the acceptance/rejection communication indicates that the candidate has been accepted for the target recruitment listing, provide the candidate with an automated acceptance update response, indicating to the candidate that the candidate has been accepted for the target recruitment listing (sends an offer to the candidate, ¶[0190]; and Fig. 8, ref. char. 81);
and when the acceptance/rejection communication indicates that the candidate has been rejected for the target recruitment listing, provide the candidate with an automated rejection update response, indicating to the candidate that the candidate has been rejected for the target recruitment listing (sends notification candidate is being removed from the campaign, ¶[0138] and Fig. 6, ref. char. 53).
Regarding claim 5, Champaneria teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein the automated status update response is a personalized empathetic response generated based on the extracted relevant data (strongly encourages candidates to apply to more relevant positions, ¶[0119]; see also ¶[0076] discussing personalized messages).
Regarding claim 11, Champaneria teaches:
receiving a plurality of recruitment listings, wherein each recruitment listing includes data indicative of job qualifications (job descriptions are input, ¶[0058]; see also e.g. ¶[0016] noting job descriptions include job requirements);
compiling a body of knowledge based on the received recruitment listings (job descriptions are loaded into the system, ¶[0060]; see also ¶[0069] discussing maintaining the job postings);
receiving a job application from a candidate, wherein the job application includes a resume and a target recruitment listing among the plurality of recruitment listings (candidate applies for the position, ¶[0118], [0170]; see also e.g. ¶[0017] discussing resumes);
extracting relevant data from the resume by analyzing the resume (parses the candidates’ resumes, ¶[0131]);
providing the job application to a hiring entity corresponding to the target recruitment listing (completed applications are submitted to a hiring manager, ¶¶[0170]-[0172]);
upon providing the job application to the hiring entity, providing the candidate with an automated status update response, indicating to the candidate that the candidate is being considered for the target recruitment listing (sends periodic updates to candidates about the status of their application, ¶[0115]; notifies candidate with invitation to apply, ¶[0106]; and candidates are notified of available timeslots for an interview, ¶[0177]; and Fig. 7, ref. char. 72; see also e.g. ¶[0116] discussing types of communications);
receiving an acceptance/rejection communication from the hiring entity, indicating whether the candidate has been accepted or rejected for the target recruitment listing (provides system information that candidates have failed and passed the interview, ¶¶[0188], [0190]; ;
when the acceptance/rejection communication indicates that the candidate has been accepted for the target recruitment listing, providing the candidate with an automated acceptance update response, indicating to the candidate that the candidate has been accepted for the target recruitment listing (sends an offer to the candidate, ¶[0190]; and Fig. 8, ref. char. 81);
and when the acceptance/rejection communication indicates that the candidate has been rejected for the target recruitment listing, providing the candidate with an automated rejection update response, indicating to the candidate that the candidate has been rejected for the target recruitment listing (sends notification candidate is being removed from the campaign, ¶[0138] and Fig. 6, ref. char. 53).
Regarding claim 15, Champaneria teaches the limitations of claim 11 and further teaches:
wherein the automated status update response is a personalized empathetic response generated based on the extracted relevant data (strongly encourages candidates to apply to more relevant positions, ¶[0119]; see also ¶[0076] discussing personalized messages).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champaneria in view of McHale et al, US Pub. No. 2021/0312401, herein referred to as “McHale”.
Regarding claim 2, Champaneria teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein when the acceptance/rejection communication indicates that the candidate has been rejected for the target recruitment listing (sends notification candidate is being removed from the campaign, ¶[0138] and Fig. 6, ref. char. 53),
when it is determined that the candidate is a match with any one of the recruitment listings in the body of knowledge other than the target recruitment listing, provide the candidate with an automated matching update response, including information related to the matching recruitment listing (matches candidates with jobs, ¶[0094], and notifies candidate with invitation to apply, ¶[0106]);
However Champaneria does not explicitly teach:
the machine learning model is further configured to: compare the extracted relevant data from the resume with each recruitment listing in the body of knowledge other than the target recruitment listing; determine whether the candidate is a match with any one of the recruitment listings in the body of knowledge other than the target recruitment listing.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for the system of Champaneria to compare rejected applicants with other job listings because it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of a reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom, see MPEP 2144.01. That is, Champaneria teaches matching applicants and job openings, ¶[0094]. One skilled in the art would infer that Champaneria would not stop matching an applicant with jobs just because the applicant was rejected for one job once.
However Champaneria does not teach but McHale does teach:
and when it is determined that the candidate is not a match with any one of the recruitment listings in the body of knowledge other than the target recruitment listing, provide the candidate with an automated non-matching update response, indicating to the candidate that a match was not found (when re-matching or new matching is unsuccessful, invites the job-seeker to consider other jobs and to explore other career paths, ¶[0047]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the candidate sourcing and matching of Champaneria with the rematching process of McHale because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the matching process in Champaneria may need to be adjusted and accordingly would have modified Champaneria to include the adjustable matching process of McHale.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Champaneria and McHale teaches the limitations of claim 2 and McHale further teaches:
wherein the automated non-matching update response includes career coaching information (may search for education providers to provide relevant training and certification programs to meet qualification attributes requirements for the more job openings, ¶[0063]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the candidate sourcing and matching of Champaneria with the rematching process of McHale because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the matching process in Champaneria may need to be adjusted and accordingly would have modified Champaneria to include the adjustable matching process of McHale.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Champaneria and McHale teaches the limitations of claim 2 and Champaneria further teaches:
wherein the career coaching information includes a matrix template mapping skills of the user included in the relevant data extracted from the resume with qualifications for a bridge job (creates matrix for matching job requirements to candidate information, ¶[0060]).
Regarding claims 12-14, claims 12-14 recite similar limitations as claims 2-4 and accordingly are rejected for similar reasons as claims 2-4.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champaneria in view of Milligan et al, US Pub. No. 2017/0180294, herein referred to as “Milligan”.
Regarding claim 6, Champaneria teaches the limitations of claim 1 and does not teach but Milligan does teach:
wherein the automated status update response is personalized based on a birthdate of the user (automatically sends happy birthday message based on birthday, ¶[0099]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the candidate sourcing and matching of Champaneria with the happy birthday message of Milligan because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized some users would likely enjoy receiving birthday messages can accordingly would have modified Champaneria to provide birthday messages, e.g. as taught by Milligan.
Regarding claim 16, Champaneria teaches the limitations of claim 11 and does not teach but Milligan does teach:
wherein the automated status update response is personalized based on a birthdate of the user (automatically sends happy birthday message based on birthday, ¶[0099]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the candidate sourcing and matching of Champaneria with the happy birthday message of Milligan because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized some users would likely enjoy receiving birthday messages can accordingly would have modified Champaneria to provide birthday messages, e.g. as taught by Milligan.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champaneria in view of Wu et al, US Pub. No. 20210357458, herein referred to as “Wu”.
Regarding claim 7, Champaneria teaches the limitations of claim 1 and does not teach but Wu does teach:
wherein the automated status update response is one of a plurality of automated status update responses, and the user chooses the frequency of receiving the plurality of automated status update responses (users sets notification frequencies, ¶¶[0028], [0061]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the candidate sourcing and matching of Champaneria with the users settings of Wu because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized some users would likely be interested in controlling how often they receive job notifications and accordingly would have modified the Champaneria to allow the user to input notification settings, e.g. as taught by Wu.
Regarding claim 17, Champaneria teaches the limitations of claim 11 and does not teach but Wu does teach:
wherein the automated status update response is one of a plurality of automated status update responses, and the user chooses the frequency of receiving the plurality of automated status update responses (users sets notification frequencies, ¶¶[0028], [0061]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the candidate sourcing and matching of Champaneria with the users settings of Wu because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized some users would likely be interested in controlling how often they receive job notifications and accordingly would have modified the Champaneria to allow the user to input notification settings, e.g. as taught by Wu.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champaneria in view of Maltese, US Pub. No. 2020/0202304, herein referred to as “Maltese”.
Regarding claim 8, Champaneria teaches the limitations of claim 1 and does not teach but Maltese does teach:
establishing a connection with a communication portal of an unemployment agency; and transmitting employment data corresponding to the candidate to the unemployment agency (reports employment status to relevant state governments, ¶¶[0049], [0067]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the candidate sourcing and matching of Champaneria with government reporting of Maltese because Maltese suggests doing so; see MPEP 2143.I.G. That is, Maltese teaches some users are obligated to report employment information, ¶[0049]. One of ordinary skill would have recognized these users would likely appreciate assistance doing so and accordingly would have provided functionality to assist with this process.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Champaneria and Maltese teaches the limitations of claim 8 and Champaneria further teaches:
wherein the employment data includes job search data indicating a job search status corresponding to the candidate (identifies users would are likely looking for a job, ¶[0075]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Champaneria and Maltese teaches the limitations of claim 8 and Maltese further teaches:
wherein the employment data includes an employment status corresponding to the candidate (job applicant information includes employment status, ¶[0066]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the candidate sourcing and matching of Champaneria with government reporting of Maltese because Maltese suggests doing so; see MPEP 2143.I.G. That is, Maltese teaches some users are obligated to report employment information, ¶[0049]. One of ordinary skill would have recognized these users would likely appreciate assistance doing so and accordingly would have provided functionality to assist with this process.
Regarding claim 18, Champaneria teaches the limitations of claim 11 and does not teach but Maltese does teach:
establishing a connection with a communication portal of an unemployment agency; and transmitting employment data corresponding to the candidate to the unemployment agency (reports employment status to relevant state governments, ¶¶[0049], [0067]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the candidate sourcing and matching of Champaneria with government reporting of Maltese because Maltese suggests doing so; see MPEP 2143.I.G. That is, Maltese teaches some users are obligated to report employment information, ¶[0049]. One of ordinary skill would have recognized these users would likely appreciate assistance doing so and accordingly would have provided functionality to assist with this process.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Champaneria and Maltese teaches the limitations of claim 18 and Champaneria further teaches:
wherein the employment data includes job search data indicating a job search status corresponding to the candidate (identifies users would are likely looking for a job, ¶[0075]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Champaneria and Maltese teaches the limitations of claim 18 and Maltese further teaches:
wherein the employment data includes an employment status corresponding to the candidate (job applicant information includes employment status, ¶[0066]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the candidate sourcing and matching of Champaneria with government reporting of Maltese because Maltese suggests doing so; see MPEP 2143.I.G. That is, Maltese teaches some users are obligated to report employment information, ¶[0049]. One of ordinary skill would have recognized these users would likely appreciate assistance doing so and accordingly would have provided functionality to assist with this process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jena et al, US Pub. No. 2020/0402014 teaches a similar employment method
Mondal et al US Pub. No. 2020/0184422 teaches a similar employment method
Zhang et al, US Pub. No. 2017/0061382 teaches a similar employment method
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626