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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/16/2025 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-12, 18 and 21-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “a connection module configured to”, “an acquisition module configured to”, “an assignment module configured to”, “a division module configured to” in claim 6-7, 10-11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitations “a connection module”, “an acquisition module”, “an assignment module”, “a division module” in claim 6 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification lacks adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. Although the specification, par. 0065-0072, Figures 2 and 3, describe the elements “a connection module”, “an acquisition module” and “an assignment module” as performing the functions, they are merely software modules stored in memory. Further, while, the specification describes a processor (e.g., general purpose processor), it fails to disclose necessary algorithms to transform the processor to perform the functions. The specification lacks sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structures perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant may:
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 6-7, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims 6 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above in 112(f) (i.e., connection module, an acquisition module, an assignment module, a division module and determination module), the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 7, and 10-11, they are rejected as being dependent on rejected claim 6.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, 18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The following claim languages lack antecedent basis:
Claim 1, line 12, the term “the corresponding task” lacks antecedent basis. There is no recitation of a corresponding task and it is unclear whether this refers to the digital certificate processing task or some other task.
The following claim languages are not clearly understood and indefinite:
As per claim 1, lines 4-5 recites/refers to “a mining pool”. However, it is not clearly defined what a “mining pool” is, nor it is clear whether there’s any relationship between the mining and the digital certificate processing task. Further, the specification fails to clearly define or describe as to what a “mining pool” is. Line 12 recites “the difficulty level being determined by…”, however, the claim previously recites 2 difficulty levels, “a difficulty level” in line 8 and “a theoretical difficulty level” in line 10. It is unclear whether the recitation in line 12 refers to the difficulty level of line 8 or the theoretical difficulty level of line 10. Further, the division of content and difficulty level is based on computation capability, however, if the difficulty level of line 12 (that is already unclear as above), is the difficulty level of line 8, it would then be unclear that in lines 12-13, the difficulty level is described as determined by computation power. That is, the difficulty level is both determined by computation power and divided by computation capability. Thus, it is unclear what effect the dividing and determining on different bases has on the difficulty level. Line 8, it is unclear what is meant by “dividing a content and a difficulty level”. While content may be divided and processed separately, it is unclear what is meant by dividing a difficulty level, particularly in view of its connection with dividing a content. For example, if the task/content is to be associated with a difficulty level of 10 and the content is divided in half, does dividing the difficulty mean the difficulty is similarly divided in half and each subtask/sub-content is now of difficulty 5; or instead, is the difficulty level assessed anew for each subtask/sub-content; or instead, are there set difficulty levels that are divided for distribution. It is therefore unclear and indefinite as to how one would divide a difficulty level. Line 12, recites the term “the corresponding task”. However, it is unclear whether this refers to the digital certificate processing task in line 1, or some other task.
As per claims 6 and 12, they are rejected for having similar issues as indicated for claim 1 above.
Further, claims 6 as described above in 112(f) interpretation (i.e., connection module, acquisition module, assignment module, division module and determination module) without the detail about the means to accomplish the functions are not an adequate disclosure of corresponding structure. Therefore, claim 6 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).As per claims 2, 5, 7, 10-11 and 18, 21-22, they are rejected as being dependent on rejected claims 1, 6 and 12.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 6, 11-12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN102571568 A) in view of Nadalin et al. (U.S. Pub. 20050278534 A1), further in view of Grant et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9329937 B1), and further in view of Zack et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20020124041 A1).
Yang, Nadalin and Grant were cited in a previous office action.
As per claim 1, Yang teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a method for relaying a … processing task implemented by an apparatus for relaying the … processing task (par. 0002 The present application relates to the field of network technology, and in particular to a task processing method) comprising:
establishing a first connection between a … processing apparatus and the apparatus for relaying a … processing task and a second connection between a mining pool and the apparatus for relaying a … processing task (par. 0129 monitoring and management are all done through connection pools established in each component, which sequentially place all network connections in the current component into the connection pool; par. 0060 For example, when a message publishing component receives a task message … it selects an available network connection between the message publishing component [mining pool] and the message forwarding component [apparatus for relaying] from the connection pool, and then publishes the task message to the message forwarding component through the network connection. Alternatively, the message publishing component [mining pool] selects an effective network connection from the connection pool from the message publishing component to the message forwarding component [apparatus for relaying] and then to the message processing component [processing apparatus]);
obtaining the … processing task from the mining pool through the second connection (par. 0056 the message publishing component publishes the task to the message forwarding component through the network connection between the message publishing component and the message forwarding component);
assigning the … processing task to the … processing apparatus through the first connection (par. 0056 … after the message forwarding component receives the task, it sends the task to the message processing component with which it has a network connection after scheduling).
Yang does not expressly describe: a digital certificate processing task; obtaining the digital certificate processing task; digital certificate processing apparatus.
However, Nadalin teaches: digital certificate processing task; obtaining the digital certificate processing task; and digital certificate processing apparatus (par. 0055 obtaining a digital certificate (step 502). For example, the digital certificate may be received at an e-commerce server from a remote party; par. 0011 A certificate validation service [equiv. to digital certificate processing apparatus] receives a certificate validation request [digital certificate processing task] for a target certificate from a client).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine the teaching of Yang by incorporating the technique of processing certificate validation requests as set forth by Nadalin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make this combination because it would have been a simple substitution. Yang generally describes method distributing processing tasks via message forwarding component to a processing component, except the tasks are not digital certificate processing tasks to be processed on digital certificate processing apparatus. However, processing digital certificate processing tasks using digital certificate processing apparatus was known in the art. Nadalin for example describes using a certificate validation service for processing certificate validation requests. One of ordinary skill would have substituted data processing tasks with digital certificate processing tasks to arrive to a method distributing/assigning digital certificate processing tasks (e.g. validating tasks) to be processed by digital certificate proceeding apparatuses, with predictable results.
Yang and Nadalin do not expressly disclose: dividing a content and a difficulty level of the digital certificate processing task according to computation capability of each digital certificate processing apparatus, the computation capability being determined according to a theoretical difficulty level of the digital certificate processing task assigned to each digital certificate processing apparatus and a time interval for receiving an answer to the corresponding task, the difficulty level being determined by computation power required for performing the digital certificate processing task, and the theoretical difficulty level being determined according to rated computation power of the digital certificate processing apparatus.
However, Grant teaches: dividing a content and a difficulty level of the … processing task according to computation capability of each … processing apparatus, the computation capability being determined according to a theoretical difficulty level of the … processing task assigned to each … processing apparatus … , the difficulty level being determined by computation power required for performing the … processing task, and the theoretical difficulty level being determined according to rated computation power of the … processing apparatus (col. 8, lines 26-28 an auto-scaler … may determine a number of tasks [divide] based on an amount of work to be done [level of difficulty/complexity], an amount of available resources, a desired deadline or defined work/duration period. col. 8, lines 38-44 tasks may be divided or spread or replicated by the distributor 2200 among multiple partitions 2220 2240 2260 according to a variety of techniques, such as according to the computing power and/or expected uptime of a particular partition [apparatus] or by actual available resources in each partition [theoretical difficulty level], or weighted by nominal max. available resources [rated computing power] of each partition; col. 8, lines 31-32 resource utilization by the application, or other related metrics or measures of performance; col. 11, lines 64-65 resource utilization [cpu, memory, disk space]. Here, resource utilization is a measure that encompasses computing power, while nominal max. available resources are equivalent to rated computation power, and the theoretical difficulty level may be determined based on the nominal max. available resources of each partition).
Examiner notes that the instant specification [par. 0056, 0057] does not provide details or definitions beyond the broad claim language [computation power, rated computation power, difficulty level, theoretical difficulty level], and as such the teaching of Grant reasonably reads on the BRI of the claim limitation in light of the specification.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine/modify the teaching of Yang and Nadalin with the technique of dividing computing tasks as set forth by Grant because it would provide for minimizing impact of maintenance on running jobs (which enable faster performance of maintenance operations), and increasing workload diversity [col. 11, lines 32-34].
Yang, Nadalin and Grant do not expressly disclose: in response to time for the digital certificate processing apparatus to compute the digital certificate processing task increasing, adjusting the difficulty level of a subsequent assigned digital certificate processing task accordingly for the digital certificate processing apparatus.
However, Zack teaches: in response to time for the … processing apparatus to compute the … processing task increasing, adjusting the difficulty level of a subsequent assigned … processing task accordingly for the … processing apparatus; a time interval for receiving an answer to the corresponding task (Abstract, determining if the system is likely to complete processing the task in the predetermined time period, increasing or decreasing [adjusting] the complexity of the task and the processing rate of the real-time system accordingly.; par. 0052 If … the processing controller detects that the current CPU clock setting will not be sufficient to complete processing the tasks, it can decrease the complexity of selected tasks, thereby reducing their CPU processing power consumption).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine/modify the teaching of Yang, Nadalin and Grant with the technique of increasing/decreasing the complexity of tasks as set forth by Zack by implementing in the manner of decreasing the complexity of selected tasks responsive to a predetermine time or previous execution, thereby reducing their processing power consumption [par. 0052] or increasing complexity of tasks by increasing processing resources to complete a task in a timely manner.
As per claim 6, it is an apparatus having similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, claim 6 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 1. Yang further teaches: a connection module, an acquisition module and an assignment module (par. 0060, a message publishing component configured to establish network connection and publish a task to a forwarding component; par. 0056 the forwarding component configured to acquire the task and assign to a processing component).
As per claim 11, Nadalin further teaches: wherein the apparatus includes comprising one of a digital certificate processing analog apparatus and a … server (par. 0047 certificate validation service 406 may be implemented such that it is located anywhere within a distributed data processing environment, including computing device 400 … Alternatively, components that invoke certificate validation service 406 may execute on the same physical device as certificate validation service 406, e.g., on the same server or on the same trusted computing platform). Yang further teaches: a cloud server (par. 0159 cloud computing platform).
As per claim 12, it is an apparatus having similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, claim 12 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 1. Nadalin further teaches: a processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the at least one processor (par. 0024 Data processing system 120 contains one or more central processing units (CPUs) 122 connected to internal system bus 123, which interconnects random access memory (RAM) 124, read-only memory 126).
As per claim 22, it is an apparatus having similar limitations as claim 11. Thus, claim 22 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 11.
Claims 2, 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Nadalin, Grant and Zack, as applied to claims 1, 6 and 12 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20190297559 A1).
Inoue was cited in a previous office action.
As per claim 2, Yang further teaches: establishing a plurality of first connections with a plurality of … processing apparatuses, respectively, and second connections with mining pools … (par. 0091 This embodiment, based on the embodiment shown in FIG. 3, sets a load balancing algorithm on each component and adds a load balancing function to load balance network connections or task messages. In addition, the connection pools in various components of the distributed message queue are respectively encapsulated as network connection circular queues; par. 0071 Similarly, the connection pool of the message forwarding component includes information about the network connections between all message forwarding components and message publishing components, and between message forwarding components and message processing components; and the connection pool of the message processing component includes information about the network connections between all message processing components and message forwarding components).
Yang, Nadalin, Grant and Zack do not expressly describe: a number of the second connections being smaller than a number of the first connections.
However, Suzuki teaches: a number of the second connections being smaller than a number of the first connections (par. 0032 and determining that the number Ca of connections [first connections] is larger than the number Cb of connections [second connections]; par. 0062 when the first number of connections becomes larger than the second number of connections).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yang, Nadalin, Grant and Zack by including a number of first connections to be larger/smaller than second number of connections as disclosed by Suzuki as this would provide for controlling number of connections between a mining pool and an apparatus for relaying, and between the apparatus for relaying and a processing apparatus so as to reduce imbalance and thereby improve performance.
As per claim 7, it is an apparatus having similar limitations as claim 2. Thus, claim 7 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 2.
As per claim 18, it is an apparatus having similar limitations as claim 2. Thus, claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 2.
Claims 5, 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Nadalin, Grant and Zack, as applied to claims 1, 6 and 12 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210176647 A1).
Hong was cited in a previous office action.
As per claim 5, Yang further teaches: establishing the first connection with one … processing apparatus and second connections with a plurality of mining pools according to the computation capability of the … processing apparatus (par. 0091 This embodiment, based on the embodiment shown in FIG. 3, sets a load balancing algorithm on each component and adds a load balancing function to load balance network connections or task messages. In addition, the connection pools in various components of the distributed message queue are respectively encapsulated as network connection circular queues; par. 0071 Similarly, the connection pool of the message forwarding component includes information about the network connections between all message forwarding components and message publishing components, and between message forwarding components and message processing components; and the connection pool of the message processing component includes information about the network connections between all message processing components and message forwarding components).
Yang, Nadalin, Grant and Zack do not expressly disclose: a number of the second connections being greater than a number of the first connection.
However, Hong discloses: a number of the second connections being greater than a number of the first connection (pa. 0056 determining that the first number is less than or equal to the second number).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yang, Nadalin, Grant and Zack by incorporating the technique of stablishing connections where a number of first connections is less than second number of connections as set forth by Hong as this would facilitate for a smaller number of digital certificated processing nodes to service tasks from a larger number of miners/servers, with predictable results.
As per claim 10, it is an apparatus having similar limitations as claim 5. Thus, claim 10 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 5.
As per claim 21, it is an apparatus having similar limitations as claim 5. Thus, claim 21 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1) The applicant argues in page 14 for claim 1 that Yang, Nadalin, Grant, and Bower also fails to teach or suggest “the computation capability being determined according to a theoretical difficulty level of the digital certificate processing task assigned to each digital certificate processing apparatus and a time interval for receiving an answer to the corresponding task, the difficulty level being determined by computation power required for performing the digital certificate processing task, and the theoretical difficulty level being determined according to rated computation power of the digital certificate processing apparatus.”
As per point 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the combination of prior art reasonably teaches all the limitations as claimed. For example, Grant, describes in col. 7, line 67 dividing a job in to a number of tasks based on configuration; wherein, col. 8, lines 27-33, a number of tasks maybe determined based on an amount of work to be done, an amount of available resources, a desired deadline or defined work/duration period, application service time latency, application request queue length, application throughput, resource utilization by the application, or other related metrics or measures of performance or utilization or execution parameters [equivalent to difficulty level]. Further describes, col. 8, lines 38-44 tasks may be divided or spread or replicated by the distributor 2200 among multiple partitions 2220 2240 2260 according to a variety of techniques, such as according to the computing power and/or expected uptime of a particular partition [apparatus] or by actual available resources in each partition [theoretical difficulty level], or weighted by nominal max. available resources [rated computation power] of each partition. Further, col. 8, lines 32-32 describes resource utilization by the application, or other related metrics or measures of performance; col. 11, lines 64-65 resource utilization [cpu, memory, disk space], wherein the resource utilization is a measure that encompasses computation power, while nominal max. available resources are equivalent to rated computation power, and the theoretical difficulty level maybe determined based on the nominal max. available resources of each partition. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 20100125847 A1 teaches job managing device, job managing method and job managing program.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Willy W. Huaracha whose telephone number is (571)270-5510. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets can be reached on (571) 272-3338. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Willy W. Huaracha whose telephone number is (571)270-55105510. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00pm. 23756
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets can be reached on (571) 272-3338. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WH/
Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/BRADLEY A TEETS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights