<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>"...
due to a policy that stays all other USPTO action until the petition is decided."</div><div><br></div><div>I missed that in your initial message. "Policies" aren't enforceable against the public unless they've undergone some degree of rulemaking process (see my amicus brief at <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5016833" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5016833</a> for a tutorial on "general statements of policy" under 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A)). But the PTO don't give no rat's ass for no law that comes between the PTO and fee revenue. When an examiner uses the word "policy" it's almost always baloney that the examiner made up just to avoid doing the damn job. You could challenge the examiner to give you the written doc that states this "policy." (or you could look in the MPEP to see whether the "policy" exists. My bet is that it doesn't.)<br></div><div><br></div><div>So unless you're willing to pursue a case in Federal Court, the practical reality is that you've got two choices -- appeal or RCE.</div><div><br></div><div>The second practical reality is the calendar. Maybe you have a legally-sound case, but you don't have the calendar runway to do anything about it. <br></div><div><br></div><div>The third practical reality is that if a claim is amended, your likelihood of success on Petition for Premature Final is zero.
A Petition for Premature Final has to fit within MPEP
§ 706.07. "While the issues of the claim admittedly changed" -- with this admission, this petition was dead on arrival, and it was a mistake to file it (unless you had some strategic plan that goes beyond getting finality set aside). The PTO's view is that the examiner doesn't owe you a reasoned explanation. All the examiner owes you is that if there's a new ground of an unamended claim (or amended but new ground "not necessitated by amendment") then the action can't be final. They're wrong (remember -- the PTO don't give no rat's ass for no law), but that's how the Office of Petitions maximizes fee revenue. <br></div><div><br></div><div>I have a bunch of techniques I use to keep myself within MPEP
§ 706.07. One key one is that I almost never amend an independent claim by pulling a dependent claim up. When that's the claim I want, I push the independent claim <b>down</b> into the dependent claim, so I can claim that the formerly-dependent-now-rewritten-in-independent-form claim is "unamended" (or at least "not necessitated by amendment") for final purposes.</div><div><br></div><div>But even that wouldn't solve your problem, because (I gather) you made additional amendment. The fourth practical reality is that once an Action is "final" your rights to amend are constricted by 37 CFR § 1.116(b) and whatever grace the examiner gives you under AFCP. If you want to amend outside
§ 1.116(b), there's no right to it, there's no right to an explanation of the new issues, and there's no whining about it.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 9:54\u202fPM <<a href="mailto:steve@hoffberglaw.com" target="_blank">steve@hoffberglaw.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div lang="EN-US"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">David:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">I already have an AFCP 2.0 and response pending. My beef is that \u201cthey\u201d have refused to let the Examiner look at it because the Petition is pending. In other words, my client\u2019s gain from my filing the petition to withdraw finality is a guaranteed 3 month extension plus appeal fee plus AFCP preparation fee. The gain is that I am likely to pursue the original claims, since amending claim 1 to add claim 4 was a concession to make progress. That deal seems off the table now. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Very truly yours,</span><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Steven M. Hoffberg</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Hoffberg & Associates</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">29 Buckout Road</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">West Harrison, NY 10604</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">(914) 949-2300 tel</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">(845) 625-2547 fax</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><a href="mailto:steve@hoffberglaw.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">steve@hoffberglaw.com</span></a></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/hoffberg/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">https://www.linkedin.com/in/hoffberg/</span></a></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white">Emails and attachments received from us may be confidential and/or protected by the attorney-client privilege, as attorney work-product or based on other privileges or provisions of law. If you are not designated as an intended recipient of this email, do not read, copy, use, forward or disclose the email or any of its attachments to others. Instead, immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system. We strictly prohibit any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of emails or attachments sent by us to other than the intended recipient.</span><span style="color:black"> This communication does not create any legal obligations on behalf of the sender, unless executed in a manner indicating an intent to be bound.</span><span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p><div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentcolor currentcolor;padding:3pt 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> David Boundy <<a href="mailto:DavidBoundyEsq@gmail.com" target="_blank">DavidBoundyEsq@gmail.com</a>> <br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January 23, 2025 9:49 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:steve@hoffberglaw.com" target="_blank">steve@hoffberglaw.com</a><br><b>Cc:</b> David Boundy <<a href="mailto:DavidBoundyEsq@gmail.com" target="_blank">DavidBoundyEsq@gmail.com</a>>; For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Patentpractice] Petition to Withdraw Finality</span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Makes an easy appeal, no?</p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">File a routine Rule 116 Request for Reconsideration at least a day before, and then the Notice of Appeal and Pre-Appeal no later than the deadline. (Be sure they're at least a day apart.) Either you'll get a reverse or reopen (good) out of the Pre-Appeal, or you'll get an Advisory Acton out of the Request for Reconsideration, so at least you know the examiner's best thoughts for a more focused appeal. (Also, the notice that created pre-appeals encouraged you to refer to argumetns in prior papers, <span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">USPTO, <i>New Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Pilot Program</i>, 1296 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office, Vol. 2 at 67 (Jul. 12, 2005) <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2005/week28/patbref.htm" target="_blank">http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2005/week28/patbref.htm</a></span> ). If you can avoid RCEing, that's good -- an increasing fraction of examiners are playing the kind of game you describe, to milk counts that aren't earned. If you keep the count system working in your favor instead of against you,. eventually you will get the examiner to engage -- either to allow or to give you a cogent explanation.</p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 7:22<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">\u202f</span>PM <<a href="mailto:steve@hoffberglaw.com" target="_blank">steve@hoffberglaw.com</a>> wrote:</p></div><blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in"><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:0.5in"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">The issue is that claim 4 was materially amended after non-final rejection, and I still have no idea what aspect of either reference is being treated as disclosing the feature of the claims \u201cwherein at least two of the plurality of wearable or implantable sensors sense the same physiological condition\u201d. The issue on Petition is in fact presence of a prima facie rejection, but there is a parallel argument on the merits that claim 4 is patentable\u2014but, the Examiner is somehow precluded by USPTO policy from reviewing my submission. Claim 4 was amended as follows:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:0.5in"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">4. (Currently Amended) The biometric system of claim 1, wherein the physiological [[data]] <u>condition</u> is selected from the group consisting of a cardiac activity, a muscular activity, a galvanic skin response, an electrophysiological activity<u>,</u> [[;]] a temperature, a blood pressure, a glucose level, an oxygen saturation, a nitric oxide level, a vasodilation level, an extravascular fluid condition, a physical balance, a muscular coordination, a physical exhaustion, an endurance limit<u>, and wherein at least two of the plurality of wearable or implantable sensors sense the same physiological condition</u>.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:0.5in"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">The non-final rejection reads as follows:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> Regarding claim 4, Khachaturian discloses the biometric system of claim 1, wherein the physiological data is selected from the group consisting of a cardiac activity, a muscular activity, a galvanic skin response, an electrophysiological activity; a temperature, a blood pressure, a glucose level, an oxygen saturation, a nitric oxide level, a vasodilation level, an extravascular fluid condition, a physical balance, a muscular coordination, a physical exhaustion, an endurance limit (In one aspect, a device measures temperature, heart rate at rest, heart rate variability, respiration, SpO2, blood flow, blood pressure, total hemoglobin (SpHb), PVi, methemoglobin (SpMet), acoustic respiration rate (RRa), carboxyhemoglobin (SpCO), oxygen reserve index (ORi), oxygen content (SpOC) and/or EEG of a human(col. 1, lines 28-33)).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:0.5in"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">The final rejection reads as follows:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> Regarding claim 4, Khachaturian <u>in view of Sharf teaches</u> the biometric system of claim 1, wherein the physiological condition is selected from the group consisting of a cardiac activity, a muscular activity, a galvanic skin response, an electrophysiological activity, a temperature, a blood pressure, a glucose level, an oxygen saturation, a nitric oxide level, a vasodilation level, an extravascular fluid condition, a physical balance, a muscular coordination, a physical exhaustion, an endurance limit<u>, and wherein at least two of the plurality of wearable or implantable sensors sense the same physiological condition</u> (In one aspect, a device measures temperature, heart rate at rest, heart rate variability, respiration, SpO2, blood flow, blood pressure, total hemoglobin (SpHb), PVi, methemoglobin (SpMet), acoustic respiration rate (RRa), carboxyhemoglobin (SpCO), oxygen reserve index (ORi), oxygen content (SpOC) and/or EEG of a human (col. 1, lines 28-33)).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:0.5in"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif">Therefore, the Examiner simply parroted the language of the claim and named the secondary reference to the rejection, without altering the analysis or otherwise apprising me of which reference allegedly contains the \u201csame physiological condition\u201d language (my position on the merits is that neither does). It is certainly not at col. 1, lines 28-33 of Khachaturian:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:0.5in"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><img border="0" width="331" height="88" style="width:3.4479in;height:0.9166in" id="m_3504843304459852859m_6959967467005325646m_-8047358167362046849m_-2163307422982162983Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:ii_19498bb3cc04cff311"></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif"> The advisory action included no supplemental sheet, and only boxes 1(b), 3(c), 7 (will not be entered), and 12 (\u201cThe amendments do not overcome the current prior art rejection\u201d) are checked, with no explanation whatsoever.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Very truly yours,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Steven M. Hoffberg</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Hoffberg & Associates</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">29 Buckout Road</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">West Harrison, NY 10604</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">(914) 949-2300 tel</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">(845) 625-2547 fax</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:steve@hoffberglaw.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">steve@hoffberglaw.com</span></a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/hoffberg/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">https://www.linkedin.com/in/hoffberg/</span></a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p><div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;padding:3pt 0in 0in;border-color:currentcolor"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> David Boundy <<a href="mailto:DavidBoundyEsq@gmail.com" target="_blank">DavidBoundyEsq@gmail.com</a>> <br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January 23, 2025 1:01 PM<br><b>To:</b> For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:steve@hoffberglaw.com" target="_blank">steve@hoffberglaw.com</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Patentpractice] Petition to Withdraw Finality</span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Without deep thought and research, you might have a plausible case if you're willing to go to federal Court. (But I'd need to research it much deeper to know whether you have a strong case or a weak one.) The PTO's use of strategic delay in deciding petitions is truly beyond the pale, and you might well have a plausible claim.</p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">The PTO's position is that <i>In re Jung </i>abs<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">olves the PTO of the obligation of 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) to give you a useful explanation and <i>bona fide</i> response to your traverse. Contrast </span><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/555" target="_blank">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/555</a> with <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1519848467837385132" target="_blank">https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1519848467837385132</a> (Jung is particularly galling -- while the attorneys were working on the brief, I told them that 35 U.S.C. § 132 wouldn't get them where they needed to go, look at <span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">§ 555</span> instead. They went with § 132. And lost. Oh well.)</p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Theoretically, you could request a § 1.136(b) extension. You have arguably "prosecuted the application" in a statutory sense, but how likely do you think it is that the PTO will buy that? A court maybe (I don't know how that one would come out). But the PTO only over dead bodies.</p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">In the real world, where bullying goes unpunished because it generates revenue for the PTO and the PTO knows that court review will cost you six figures, the practical reality is that you're stuck. Appeal.</p></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 12:24<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">\u202f</span>PM steve--- via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:</p></div><blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;border-style:none none none solid;padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin:5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor rgb(204,204,204)"><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Dear Group:</p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">I ask your advice, both consensus and obscure, regarding action based on the below. I am tending toward a Notice of Appeal, preappeal conference request, and usurious extension of time. </p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">The subject case had a Final office action issued 7/26/2024. On 9/26/2024, I filed both an after final response and a petition to withdraw finality. An advisory action was issued 10/1/2024, and a Petition Decision was mail 10/23/2024. </p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">The petition was filed because a dependent claim was amended after non-final rejection, and the Examiner in the final rejection did not actually consider the effect of the amendment. This became critical when that same dependent claim was sought to be added to the independent claim.</p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">A Request for Reconsideration of the dismissal of the Petition was filed 10/24/2024. In this request for rehearing, a key sentence was \u201cWhile the issues of the claim admittedly changed, and the Examiner withdrew the prior rejections of claims 1-20, the final rejection did not, other than parroting the claim language, actually consider and analyze the differences in claim 4 before and after the amendment.\u201d The conclusion states:</p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in;text-indent:0.5in">Given that the language of the rejection explicitly fails to support the rejection, it is disingenuous for the Director to state \u201cAs detailed above, the limitation of claim 4 reciting \u2018wherein at least two of the plurality of wearable or implantable sensors sense the same physiological condition\u2019 was <b><i>discussed</i></b> by the examiner as being taught in Khachaturian in the Final Office action dated 26 July 2024 in the second paragraph on page 5.\u201d While the issue may have been nominally \u201cdiscussed\u201d, that is not the threshold required to sustain a final rejection according to 35 U.S.C. § 132(a) (\u201c\u2026\u201d) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.104 (\u201c\u2026\u201d).</p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">The request for rehearing was routed to the Office of Petitions, and based on a discussion, has not even been docketed to a petitions examiner, with the statutory deadline looming this week. There is thus no possibility that the petition will be decided before expiration of the statutory period. </p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Meanwhile, since filing of the request for reconsideration, the Examiner tells me that she is prohibited from acting on my outstanding second submission after final rejection with a timely filed AFCP 2.0 request, due to a policy that stays all other USPTO action until the petition is decided.</p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Suggestions for action?</p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Very truly yours,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Steven M. Hoffberg</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Hoffberg & Associates</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">29 Buckout Road</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">West Harrison, NY 10604</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">(914) 949-2300 tel</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">(845) 625-2547 fax</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:steve@hoffberglaw.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">steve@hoffberglaw.com</span></a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/hoffberg/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">https://www.linkedin.com/in/hoffberg/</span></a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal">-- <br>Patentpractice mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br><a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a></p></div></blockquote></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all"></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><span><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><span><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><span><span><span><span><span><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,127,160);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:12px"><a border="0" href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy" style="color:rgb(102,127,160);text-decoration:none;outline:none;background:transparent 0px 0px" target="_blank"><img alt="" height="92" width="73" src="https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4wRMgBgcdZCqTw68Gg6ihENvW6_y8dGBqYvnJwiaIyu6LO5a7IJ-cljKsueIE5uxXbT6s9MN5hE2lGU"> <br></a></p></span></span></span></span></span><p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;color:rgb(50,49,48);font-weight:normal;text-align:start;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:15px">
<b><span style="margin:0px;font-size:10pt;color:rgb(96,110,154)">David Boundy </span></b><span style="margin:0px;font-size:10pt;color:rgb(124,134,154)">| Partner </span><span style="margin:0px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;color:rgb(124,134,154)"><span style="margin:0px;background-color:white;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">|</span><span style="margin:0px;background-color:white"><span style="margin:0px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"> </span></span></span><span style="margin:0px;font-size:10pt;color:rgb(124,134,154)">Potomac Law
Group, PLLC</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;color:rgb(50,49,48);font-weight:normal;text-align:start;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:15px">
<span style="margin:0px;font-size:10pt;color:rgb(124,134,154)">P.O. Box 590638, Newton, MA 02459</span></p>
<div style="margin:0px;font-family:Tahoma,serif,EmojiFont;font-size:13.3333px;color:black;text-align:left">
<font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="#7C869A"><span style="margin:0px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif,serif,EmojiFont"></span></font></div>
<div style="margin:0px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif,Helvetica,EmojiFont,"Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji",NotoColorEmoji,"Segoe UI Symbol","Android Emoji",EmojiSymbols;font-size:13.3333px;color:black">
<font size="2" face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif,serif,EmojiFont" color="#7C869A"><span style="margin:0px"></span></font></div>
<div style="margin:0px;font-family:Tahoma,serif,EmojiFont;font-size:13px;color:black">
<font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="#7C869A"><span style="margin:0px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif,serif,EmojiFont"></span></font></div>
<p style="margin:0px;color:rgb(124,134,154);font-size:13px;font-family:Helvetica,serif,EmojiFont">
<span style="margin:0px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif,serif,EmojiFont;font-size:10pt"></span></p>
<font style="font-size:13.3333px;color:black;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif,Helvetica,EmojiFont,"Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji",NotoColorEmoji,"Segoe UI Symbol","Android Emoji",EmojiSymbols"><span style="margin:0px"></span></font>
<p style="margin:0px;color:rgb(124,134,154);font-size:13px;font-family:Helvetica,serif,EmojiFont">
<span style="margin:0px;font-size:10pt"></span><span style="margin:0px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif,serif,EmojiFont;font-size:12pt"><font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="#7C869A"><span style="margin:0px"><span style="margin:0px;font-size:10pt"><span style="margin:0px">Tel
(646)</span><span style="margin:0px"> 472-9737</span></span><span style="margin:0px;font-size:10pt"> </span></span></font><font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="gray"><span style="margin:0px;font-size:10pt">|</span></font><font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="#7C869A"><span style="margin:0px;font-size:10pt"> Fax:
(202) 318-7707</span></font></span></p>
<p style="margin:0px;color:rgb(124,134,154);font-size:13px;font-family:Helvetica,serif,EmojiFont">
<span style="margin:0px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif,serif,EmojiFont;font-size:12pt"><span style="margin:0px;font-size:10pt;color:rgb(12,100,192)"><u><a href="mailto:dboundy@potomaclaw.com" title="mailto:dboundy@potomaclaw.com" style="color:rgb(254,70,165)" target="_blank">dboundy@potomaclaw.com</a></u> </span></span><span style="margin:0px;color:gray"><span style="margin:0px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif,serif,EmojiFont;font-size:12pt"><u><span style="margin:0px;font-size:10pt"></span></u></span></span><span style="margin:0px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif,serif,EmojiFont;font-size:10pt">| </span><u style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><a href="http://www.potomaclaw.com" rel="noopener noreferrer" title="http://www.potomaclaw.com/" style="margin:0px" target="_blank"><span style="margin:0px;color:rgb(12,100,192)">www.potomaclaw.com</span></a></u></p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span><font size="2">
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">
</span><a href="http://ssrn.com/author=2936470" target="_blank">Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470</a><a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext"><br></span></a></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext">Click here to add me to your
contacts.</span></a></p></font></span></span></span></span></span><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span style="font-weight:700"></span></p></span></span><font size="1"><span style="line-height:150%;font-family:"Times New Roman""></span></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></span><font size="1"><span style="line-height:150%;font-family:"Times New Roman""></span></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></span><span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"></span></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>