Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 183 / Monday, September 22, 1997 / Notices 49471

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Patent and Trademark Office

Notice of Public Hearing and Request

for Comments on Procedures for

Recording Patent Prosecution File

Histories

AGENCY: Patent and Trademark Office,

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Hearing and Request

for Public Comments.

SUMMARY: Recent decisions by the

Untied States Supreme Court and the

United States Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit highlight the crucial role

a prosecution history plays in

determining the validity and scope of a

patent. See, e.g., Warner-Jenkinson Co.

v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 117 S. Ct.

1040, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997);

Markman v. Westview Instruments, 52

F. 3d 967, 34 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir.

1995), aff’d, 116 S. Ct. 1384, 38 USPQ2d

1461 (1996); Vitronics Corp. v.

Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 39

USPQ2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In

response, the United States Patent and

Trademark Office (PTO) requests public

comments on issues associated with

procedures for recording complete and

accurate patent prosecution history

records. Interested members of the

public are invited to testify at the

hearing and to present written

comments on any of the topics outlined

in the supplementary information

section of this notice.

DATES: A public hearing will be held on

November 18, starting at 9:00 a.m. and

ending no later than 5:00 p.m. If

sufficient interest warrants, an

additional public hearing will be held in

an alternate location, for example, in

California, or by televideo conference.

Those wishing to present oral

testimony at the hearing must request an

opportunity to do so no later than

November 3, 1997.

To ensure consideration, written

comments must be received at the PTO

no later than November 18, 1997.

Written comments and transcripts of the

hearing will be available for public

inspection on or about December 1,

1997.

ADDRESSES: The November 18, 1997

hearing will be held in the

Commissioner’s Conference Room

located in Crystal Park Two, Room 912,

2121 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

Those interested in testifying or in

submitting written comments on the

topics presented in the supplementary

information, or any other related topics,

should send their request or written

comments to the attention of Mary

Critharis addressed to Commissioner of

Patents and Trademarks, Box 4, Patent

and Trademark Office, Washington, DC

20231; or John Mr. Whealan addressed

to Office of the Solicitor, Box 15667,

Arlington, VA 22215. Written comments

may be submitted by facsimile

transmission to Mary Critharis at (703)

305–8885 or John M. Whealan at (703)

305–9373. Comments may also be

submitted by electronic mail through

the Internet to mary.critharis@uspto.gov

or john.whealan@uspto.gov. Written

comments will be maintained for public

inspection in Crystal Park Two, Room

902, 2121 Crystal Drive, Arlington,

Virginia. Written comments in

electronic form may be made available

via the PTO’s World Wide Web site at

http://www/uspto.gov. No requests for

presenting oral testimony will be

accepted through electronic mail.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Critharis by telephone at (703)

305–9300, by facsimile at (703) 305–

8885, by electronic mail at

mary.critharis@uspto.gov, or by mail

addressed to Commissioner of Patents

and Trademarks, Box 4, Washington, DC

20231; or John M. Whealan by

telephone at (703) 305–9035, by

facsimile at (703) 305–9373, by

electronic mail at

john.whealan@uspto.gov, or by mail

addressed to Office of the Solicitor, Box

15667, Arlington, VA 22215.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The official record detailing the

persecution of a patent application in

the United States Patent and Trademark

Office (PTO) is more than just a

historical record. During the life of a

patent, the prosecution record defines

the scope of the claimed invention and

the patent owner’s rights. Thus, the

written record must clearly explain the

rationale for decisions made during the

examination of a patent application,

including the basis for the grant.

Moreover, once a patent has been

granted, the official record will be

closely scrutinized by potential

licensees, competitors who must avoid

infringing the claimed invention, or

even those attempting to invalidate the

patent. In the event of litigation, the

record will serve as a primary basis for

court determinations of issues regarding

the validity or scope of the patent.

The written record created during the

prosecution of a patent application,

commonly referred to as the ‘‘file

wrapper’’ or ‘‘file history,’’ consists of

all correspondence between an

applicant and the PTO. The file history

typically consist of the patent

application as originally filed, the cited

prior art, all papers prepared by the

examiner during the course of

examination, and documents submitted

by the applicant in response to the

various requirements, objections, and

rejections made by the examiner. In

addition, the file history should contain

a written record of all oral

communications addressing

patentability issues between the

examiner and applicant. Examiners and

applicants share the responsibility for

the clarity, accuracy, and completeness

of the file wrapper.

Recent decisions by the United States

Supreme Court and the United States

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

emphasize the importance of clear and

complete prosecution histories in that

they will look more closely at and place

greater weight on patent prosecution

histories. See, e.g., Warner-Jenkinson

Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 117 S. Ct.

1040, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997);

Markman v. Westview Instruments, 52

F.3d 967, 34 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir.

1995), aff’d, 116 S. Ct. 1384, 38 USPQ2d

1461 (1996); Vitronics Corp. v.

Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 39

USPQ2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996). For

example, in Warner-Jenkinson, the

Supreme Court explained the

importance of the prosecution history of

a patent in determining infringement

under the doctrine of equivalents. 117 S.

Ct. at 1049–51, 41 USPQ2d at 1871–73.

Specifically, the Court acknowledged

that when the prosecution history

reveals that a patent owner amended the

claims by adding limitations to

overcome the prior art, the patent owner

will be estopped from alleging

infringement under the doctrine of

equivalents as to that amended

limitation. Id. at 1051, 41 USPQ2d at

1873. Subsequently, the Court held:

Mindful that claims do indeed serve both

a definitional and a notice function, we think

the better rule is to place the burden on the

patent-holder to establish the reason for an

amendment required during patent

prosecution * * *. Where no explanation is

established, however, the court should

presume that the PTO had a substantial

reason related to patent-ability for including

the limiting element added by amendment.

Id. The emphasis on the written record,

including the prosecution history, to

interpret the claims is further illustrated

by the Markman and Vitronics

decisions. In Markman, the Federal

Circuit held claim interpretation is a

question of law to be determined by the

court based on three sources: the claims,

the specification, and the prosecution

history. 52 F.3d at 979, 34 USPQ2d at

1329. Along the same lines, the Federal

Circuit in Vitronics opined that intrinsic
49472 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 183 / Monday, September 22, 1997 / Notices

evidence, which includes the claims,

the specification, and the prosecution

history, is the ‘‘most significant source’’

of evidence to be used when

interpreting claims. 90 F.3d 1582, 39

USPQ2d at 1576. In explaining that the

claims, the specification, and the

prosecution history make up the ‘‘public

record’’ upon which the public is

entitled to rely, the Federal Circuit

stated:

[T]he [prosecution] history contains the

complete record of all the proceedings before

the Patent and Trademark Office, including

any express representations made by the

applicant regarding the scope of the claims.

As such, the record before the Patent and

Trademark Office is often of critical

significance in determining the meaning of

the claims.

90 F.3d at 1582, 39 USPQ2d at 1577.

The Federal Circuit held that when the

public record ‘‘unambiguously describes

the scope of the patented invention,’’

reliance on extrinsic evidence such as

expert testimony is improper. 90 F.3d at

1583, 39 USPQ2d at 1477.

The PTO imposes written recording

requirements on both the examiner and

applicant. These requirements are

designed to furnish the patent applicant,

as well as the public and the courts,

with sufficient information to make

informed decisions. As the agency

charged with granting valid patents, the

PTO is actively concerned with the

development of clear and complete

prosecution histories. For this reason,

the PTO is interested in obtaining

public opinion as to whether the current

rules and procedures pertaining to

recording prosecution histories are

sufficient to provide complete and clear

records.

II. Issues for Public Comment

Interested members of the public are

invited to testify and present written

comments on issues they believe to be

relevant to the discussion below.

Questions following the discussion are

included to identify specific issues

upon which the PTO is interested in

obtaining public opinion.

A. Current Procedures for Recording

Patent Prosecution Histories

The emphasis on preparing complete,

clear, and accurate file histories is

prevalent throughout the patent rules

which form title 37 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) and the

guidelines of practice embodied in the

Manual of Patent Examining Procedure

(M.P.E.P.). Recognizing the importance

of the written prosecution record, PTO

rules and procedures stress the need for

examiners to communicate clearly the

basis for all rejections and objections so

that the issues can be identified early

and the applicant can be given an

opportunity to respond. See 37 CFR

1.105 (1996); M.P.E.P. 707.07 (6th ed.

1995, rev. 2, July 1996). To meet this

goal, Rule 105 explicitly states that

‘‘[t]he examiner’s action will be

complete as to all matters.’’ 37 CFR

1.105. This requires the examiner to

treat all claims on their merits, provide

authority and support for each ground

of rejection, and respond to all

arguments and points raised by

applicants.

The M.P.E.P. instructs examiners to

provide clear and complete Office

actions throughout the examination

process. For instance, when making

rejections such as lack of an adequate

written description, the examiner’s

position should be fully developed and

contain detailed reasons rather than a

mere conclusion. See M.P.E.P. 706.03

(6th ed. 1995, rev. 2, July 1996).

Moreover, upon entering an obviousness

rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the

examiner should set forth in the Office

action the relevant teachings of the prior

art relied upon, the differences between

the claimed invention and the applied

references, and an explanation as to

why the claimed invention would have

been obvious to one of ordinary skill in

the art. M.P.E.P. 706.02(j) (6th ed. 1995,

rev. 2, July 1996). Furthermore, in

making a final rejection, all outstanding

grounds of rejection should be fully

developed and clearly set forth to the

extent that the remaining issues are

readily apparent. M.P.E.P. 706.07 (6th

ed. 1995, rev. 2, July 1996).

Concurrent with the examiner’s duty

to provide clear and fully developed

Office actions, Rule 111 mandates an

applicant’s response to be complete in

order to promote an early and full

determination of the issues. 37 CFR

1.111 (1996). Current procedure requires

that the response by the patent

applicant ‘‘must distinctly and

specifically point out the supposed

errors in the examiner’s action and must

respond to every ground of objection

and rejection in the prior Office action.’’

37 CFR 1.111. Moreover, the

requirements of Rule 111 dictate that

applicants clearly point out the

patentable novelty believed to render

the subject claims allowable over the

referenced teachings. 37 CFR 1.111. See

M.P.E.P. 714.02 (6th ed. 1995, rev. 2,

July 1996).

Furthermore, to ensure a clear and

complete file record, examiners are

given the authority to require correction

if a response is not complete. See

M.P.E.P. 714.03 (6th ed. 1995, rev. 2,

July 1996). In limited situations, an

examiner is authorized to make changes

directly to the written portions of the

filed application to correct obvious

errors such as spelling and minor

grammatical errors. M.P.E.P. 1302.04

(6th ed. 1995, rev. 2, July 1996). Other

obvious informalities such as changes to

the abstract may be corrected by a

formal examiner’s amendment which is

placed in the file wrapper and a copy is

mailed to applicants. Id. Amendment or

cancellation of claims by formal

examiner’s amendment is permitted

when passing an application to issue

provided that the changes have been

authorized by applicant or applicant’s

representative. Id.

A complete prosecution history

should clearly reflect the reasons why

the patent application was allowed.

According to Rule 109, an examiner

may set forth reasons for allowance

when the record, as a whole, is unclear

as to why the application is allowable

over the prior art. 37 CFR 1.109 (1996).

Thus, the examiner must make a

judgment of the record to determine

whether reasons for allowance should

be set out in that record. However, the

M.P.E.P. cautions examiners to exercise

great care in recording reasons for

allowance so as not to misconstrue the

claims. M.P.E.P. 1302.14 (6th ed. 1995,

rev. 2, July 1996). If desired, an

applicant may comment on an

examiner’s statement of reasons for

allowance. Although an applicant’s

comments are entered in the application

file, they will not be commented upon

by the examiner in charge of the

application. See Id.

Another facet of patent prosecution in

which written records are extremely

important is the recordation of

interviews conducted between

examiners and applicants. Examiner

interviews concerning patent

applications and other matters pending

before the PTO serve to clarify the

issues in an application and materially

advance the prosecution of a case. The

substance of an interview must be made

of record in the application by means of

an Interview Summary Form completed

by the examiner and placed in the file

wrapper. M.P.E.P. 713.04 (6th ed. 1995,

rev. 2, July 1996). In addition, a

complete written statement disclosing

the substance presented at the interview

must be filed by the applicant when

reconsideration is requested in view of

an interview with an examiner. 37 CFR

1.133(b) (1996). However, the examiner

and applicant can agree that the

Interview Summary Form satisfies

applicant’s obligation under Rule 133.

M.P.E.P. 713.04.

A complete and accurate recordation

of the substance of an examiner

interview should include the following:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 183 / Monday, September 22, 1997 / Notices 49473

an identification of the claims and prior

art discussed; a description of proposed

amendments; the general thrust of the

applicant’s and examiner’s arguments;

and the results of the interview. Id.

Although the recordation of the

arguments presented at the interview

need not be lengthy or highly detailed,

the general nature of the principal

arguments should be readily apparent.

Id.

The PTO is interested in ensuring that

complete and accurate file histories are

created and maintained. Public

comments are invited to assist the PTO

in identifying any improvements that

can be made to increase the clarity and

completeness of prosecution histories.

The tenor of the following questions

should not be taken as an indication

that the PTO has taken a position on or

is predisposed to any particular

approach to creating and maintaining

complete and clear file histories.

1. Do you believe that the current

rules and procedures pertinent to

recording prosecution histories are

sufficiently clear and effective? If not,

please:

(a) identify aspects of the rules and

procedures that you believe lack clarity

or do not facilitate the creation of

adequate records;

(b) identify any changes to the rules

and procedures that you believe would

improve the clarity and completeness of

file histories; and

(c) discuss potential advantages and

hardships that patent applicants and

examiners would face if particular

changes were adopted.

2. Do you believe that examiners are

correctly and uniformly applying the

existing rules and procedures governing

the recording of file histories? If not,

please:

(a) provide or summarize examples in

which you believe examiners have not

maintained complete file histories;

(b) identify additional steps that can

be taken by the PTO and applicants to

clarify the prosecution history; and

(c) discuss possible advantages and

drawbacks to the proposed changes.

3. Do examiners generally notify

applicants when an amendment fails to

point out the patentable novelty of

applicant’s invention, as required by 37

CFR 1.111? If so, do you believe that

examiners should continue to notify

applicants of their failure to include a

statement of novelty?

4. Is language such as ‘‘to further

define and clarify the invention’’

sufficient to satisfy Rules 111 and 119

of 37 CFR which require the applicant

to point out how each amendment

distinguishes the claims over the cited

prior art? If not, please explain why

applicants should be required to recite

positively the rationale behind every

claim amendment.

5. Should examiners be required to

recite positively the reasons for

amendments to claims when claims are

amended by way of a formal examiner’s

amendment drafted pursuant to

M.P.E.P. 1302.04? If so, do you believe

this would discourage the practice of

examiner amendments? Also, what

effect would such a requirement have

on the patent prosecution process?

6. Should the current practice of

having examiners prepare reasons for

allowance, as outlined in 37 CFR 1.109,

be discontinued? If so, please explain

why you believe this is desirable. If not,

should 37 CFR 1.109 be amended to

make it mandatory that reasons for

allowance must be provided by the

examiner? (Currently, according to 37

CFR 109, setting forth reasons for

allowance is not mandatory on the

examiner’s part.) If so, in which of the

following instances should examiners

be required to set forth reasons for

allowance:

(a) in allowable patent applications;

or

(b) when the record, as a whole, is

unclear as to why the patent application

is being allowed.

7. Do reasons for allowance recorded

by examiners contain accurate and

precise interpretations regarding the

novelty or nonobviouseness of the

claims?

If not, please:

(a) explain the experiences you have

had that led you to your conclusions;

and

(b) identify what you believe should

be included in or omitted from an

examiner’s reasons for allowance.

8. What would prompt an applicant to

comment on an examiner’s statement of

reasons for allowance?

9. If an applicant disagrees with an

examiner’s reasons for allowance,

should applicant be obligated to

respond? If so, should applicant’s

failure to file a statement commenting

on the examiner’s reasons for allowance

be deemed an admission that applicant

acquiesces to the reasoning of the

examiner? (Currently, pursuant to 37

CFR 1.109, failure to comment on the

reasons for allowance does not imply

that the patent applicant agrees with the

reasoning of the examiner.)

10. Is the current practice of placing

applicant’s comments to reasons for

allowance in the application file

without further comment by the

examiner adequate? If not, how and why

should the current practice be changed?

11. Does the present system of

recording examiner interviews by means

of interview summary records, as

outlined in M.P.E.P. 713.04, provide a

complete record of the substance of the

interview? If not, please:

(a) explain the experiences you have

had that have led you to your

conclusions; and

(b) describe additional changes to the

interview summary practice you believe

would be desirable.

12. Should applicants be obligated to

record the substance of every examiner

interview, regardless of whether

reconsideration is sought?

13. Should an examiner and applicant

be permitted to agree that a written

record of the substance of an interview

by the applicant is not necessary?

14. Should the PTO require that

telephonic and/or personal interviews

between examiners, applicants and

attorneys be taped by electronic devices

and transcribed into a written medium

to be included in the file wrapper? If so,

please:

(a) identify which type of interviews

should be recorded by electronic

devices;

(b) indicate whether transactions

should be distributed to applicants;

(c) explain how this should be

implemented;

(d) identify who should bear the cost;

and

(e) discuss potential advantages and

drawbacks to electronic recording of

examiner interviews.

In the alternative, should applicants

be permitted to request recording of

examiner interviews by electronic

devices? If so, please:

(a) identify which type of interviews

applicants should be permitted to

request recording;

(b) indicate whether transcriptions

should be distributed to applicants;

(c) explain how this should be

implemented;

(d) identify who should bear the cost;

and

(e) discuss potential advantages and

drawbacks to applicant-requested

electronic recording of examiner

interviews.

B. Other Issues

Parties may address related matters

not specifically identified in the above

topics. If this is done, parties are

requested to:

1. Label that portion of their

responses as ‘‘Other Issues’’;

2. Clearly identify the matter being

addressed;

3. Provide examples, when

appropriate, that illustrate the matter

addressed;

4. Identify any relevant legal

authorities applicable to the matter

being addressed; and
49474 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 183 / Monday, September 22, 1997 / Notices

5. Provide suggestions regarding how

the matter should be addressed by the

PTO.

III. Guidelines for Oral Testimony

Individuals wishing to testify must

adhere to the following guidelines:

1. Anyone wishing to testify at the

hearings must request an opportunity to

do so no later than November 3, 1997.

Requests to testify may be accepted on

the date of the hearing if sufficient time

is available on the schedule. No one will

be permitted to testify without prior

approval.

2. Requests to testify must include the

speaker’s name, affiliation and title,

mailing address, and telephone number.

Facsimile number and Internet mail

address, if available, should also be

provided. Parties may include in their

request an indication as to whether the

party wishes to testify during the

morning or afternoon session of the

hearing.

3. Speakers will be provided between

five and fifteen minutes to present their

remarks. The exact amount of time

allocated per speaker will be

determined after the final number of

parties testifying has been determined.

All efforts will be made to accommodate

requests for additional time for

testimony presented before the day of

the hearing.

4. Speakers may provide a written

copy of their testimony for inclusion in

the record of the proceedings. These

remarks should be provided no later

than November 25, 1997.

5. Speakers must adhere to guidelines

established for testimony. These

guidelines will be provided to all

speakers on or before November 11,

1997. A schedule providing

approximate times for testimony will be

provided to all speakers the morning of

the day of the hearing. Speakers are

advised that the schedule for testimony

will be subject to change during the

course of the hearings.

IV. Guidelines for Written Comments

Written comments should include the

following information:

1. Name and affiliation of the

individual responding;

2. If applicable, an indication of

whether comments offered represent

views of the respondent’s organization

or are the respondent’s personal views;

and

3. If applicable, information on the

respondent’s organization, including the

type of organization (e.g., business,

trade group, university, or non-profit

organization) and respondent’s position,

including type of experience (e.g.,

attorney handling prosecution and/or

patent litigation, patent agent

prosecuting patent applications, or

judge deciding patent issues).

If possible, parties offering testimony

or written comments should provide

their comments in machine-readable

format. Such submissions may be

provided by electronic mail messages

sent over the Internet, or on a 3.5’’

floppy disk formatted for use in either

a Macintosh or MS–DOS based

computer. Machine-readable

submissions should be provided as

unformatted text (e.g., ASCII or plain

text), or as formatted text in one of the

following file formats: Microsoft Word

(Macintosh, DOS, or Windows versions)

or WordPerfect (Macintosh, DOS, or

Windows versions).

Information that is provided pursuant

to this notice will be made part of a

public record and may be available via

the Internet. In view of this, parties

should not provide information that

they do not wish to be publicly

disclosed or made electronically

accessible. Parties who would like to

rely on confidential information to

illustrate a point are requested to

summarize or otherwise provide the

information in a way that will permit its

public disclosure.

Dated: September 16, 1997.

Bruce A. Lehman,

Assistant Secretary of Commerce and

Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks.

[FR Doc. 97–25068 Filed 9–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–16–M

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

Chicago Board of Trade Futures

Contracts in Corn and Soybeans;

Proposed Order To Change and To

Supplement Proposal

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of, and Request for

Public Comment on, Proposed Order to

Chicago Board of Trade to Change and

to Supplement Chicago Board of Trade

Proposal on Delivery Specifications.

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures

Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’)

has issued a Proposed Order to the

Board of Trade of the City of Chicago

(‘‘CBT’’), under Section 5a(a)(10) of the

Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘Act’’), 7

U.S.C. 7a(a)(10), to Change and to

Supplement its Proposal regarding the

delivery terms of the CBT corn and

soybean futures contracts. The CBT

proposal was submitted in response to

a December 19, 1996, notification to the

CBT by the Commission that the CBT

corn and soybean futures contracts no

longer accomplish the objectives of that

section of the Act. The Commission in

its Proposed Order, proposes to change

and to supplement the CBT proposal for

its soybean futures contract by: i)

retaining the Toledo, Ohio, switching

district as a delivery location; ii)

retaining St. Louis-East St. Louis-Alton

as a delivery location for shipping

stations; and iii) making soybeans from

the Toledo delivery location deliverable

at contract price and from all other

locations at a premium over contract

price of 150 percent of the difference

between the Waterways Freight Bureau

Tariff No. 7 rate applicable to that

location and the rate applicable to

Chicago, Illinois, with Chicago at

contract price. The Commission, with

respect to the CBT corn contract, is

proposing to make corn from shipping

locations on the northern Illinois River

deliverable at a premium over contract

price of 150 percent of the difference

between the Waterways Freight Bureau

Tariff No. 7 rate applicable to that

location and the rate applicable to

Chicago, Illinois, with Chicago at

contract price. With respect to both the

CBT corn and soybean futures contracts,

the Commission also proposes to change

and to supplement the proposed

contingency plan for alternative

delivery procedures when traffic on the

northern Illinois River is obstructed and

to eliminate the $40 million minimum

net worth eligibility requirement for

issuers of shipping certificates. Finally,

the Commission is proposing to

disapprove the proposed terms of the

July and December 1999 corn futures

contracts and the July and November

1999 soybean futures contracts and is

proposing to apply the changes and

supplements described above to such

contracts under sections 5a(a)(10),

5a(a)(12), and 8a(7) of the Act.

The Commission has determined that

publication of the Proposed Order for

public comment is in the public

interest, will assist the Commission in

considering the views of interested

persons, and is consistent with the

purposes of the Commodity Exchange

Act.

DATES: Comment must be received by

October 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

mailed to the Commodity Futures

Trading Commission, Three Lafayette

Centre, 1155 21st Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20581, attention:

Office of the Secretariat; transmitted by

facsimile at (202) 418–5521; or

transmitted electronically at

[secretary@cftc.gov]. Reference should