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 .
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 11, 15, 17-18, and 20 are currently amended. Claims 6, 9, and 16 are canceled. Claim 22 is newly added. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-15, and 17-22 are currently pending for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In response to the applicant’s arguments, pg.9, that the combination of Nallagonda with Frey relies upon improper hindsight reasoning, the examiner has considered these arguments and respectfully disagrees. Frey’s disclosure describes a method for optimized node selection which avoids latency, reliability, and overhead issues. It is maintained that this is the application of well-known techniques, i.e., parallel scheduling, to achieve a predictable result. As such, a POSITA would be motivated to combine Nallagonda with Frey to avoid latency, reliability, and overhead issues.
In response to the applicant’s arguments, pgs.9-11, regarding the combination of Wu with Frey, the reconstruction described in the advisory action, “a system wherein upon a request, the controller agents scan and report back to the controller including the query interface”, is maintained to be permissible, as well as straightforward. It is also maintained that the positive motivation of “improving speed of problem solving and reducing hazards” is disclosed by Wu.
In response to the applicant’s arguments, pg.11-12, that the remaining rationales rely upon what is theoretically possible, rather than what is disclosed by the cited references, the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is maintained that one of skill in the art would be motivated to use the teachings from the cited references, as detailed in the advisory action, to achieve the claimed invention. The provided rationales are grounded in each references own teachings, rather than in the applicant’s claim language, and the resulting system combines known techniques in a predictable manner- accordingly, the applicant’s hindsight arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 15, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nallagonda (US 9852288 B2) in view of Frey (US 11310342 B1) in further view of Wu (US 20230342191 A1) in further view of You (US 20160306673 A1).
As per claim 1, Nallagonda discloses:
receiving a request to execute multiple instances of a software application in parallel within a distributed computing environment, wherein the distributed computing environment is a bare metal computing environment in which application code is executed directly by computing hardware (“receiving a request, for a user, to execute a plurality of application instances of an application, wherein the plurality of application instances are executed in parallel", clm.1 ; "The method 200 may also be practiced in a distributed computing environment where functions are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network. In a distributed computing environment, computer executable instructions may be located in both local and remote computer storage media, including memory storage devices.", col.10, lines 54-60 ; Examiner Note: the processing devices of Nallagonda are not virtualized, and thus equate to bare-metal devices)
Nallagonda discloses the receipt of a request to execute a plurality of instances of a software application in a bare-metal distributed computing environment, but does not disclose the identifying of a minimum resource requirement or receipt of resource information from the first plurality of host devices, identification of a second plurality of host devices, or configuration of a cluster including the second plurality of devices.
However, Frey discloses:
based on receiving the request, identifying at least one computing resource requirement, including at least one minimum resource requirement, for executing the multiple instances of the software application in parallel (“Controller 100 may receive (at 106) a request to execute a particular application, service, and/or software using the resources from one or more nodes within node clusters 101. In some embodiments, the request may include a resource definition.”, col.4, lines 18-22 ; “The resource definition may enumerate a minimum set of resources to run the particular application, service, and/or software, and/or may enumerate a preferred set of resources to run the particular application, service, and/or software.”, col.4, lines 23-33)
The system of Nallagonda in view of Frey would be capable of identifying the resource definition, or requirements, for executing multiple instances of a software application in parallel (Nallagonda, [clm.1])
identifying, based on the computing resource information, a second plurality of host devices from among the first plurality of host devices that fulfill the minimum resource requirement (“Each node 303 may include different resources that may be used to run different applications. A controller agent may execute on each node 303 and/or a set of nodes 303 in order to manage the allocation of resources from that node 303 and/or set of nodes 303. In some embodiments, the controller agent may include a software module or service that scans a node 303 for available resources. The controller agent may periodically report the detected resources to controller 100, and controller 100 may generate one or more graphs that map the resources available on each node 303.”, col.8, lines 42-51 ; “Traversing the relationship graphs may include selecting (at 108) different sets of resources from one or more nodes that satisfy the resource definition and/or desired set of resources for the particular application, service, and/or software.”, col.4, lines 47-51 ; “In some embodiments, the optimization criteria may include determining the set of resources that execute the particular application, service, and/or software with the least latency, the least inter-node communication, that match or are most similar to the resources enumerated within the resource definition, and/or that otherwise improve execution performance of the particular application, service, and/or software without a greater allocation of resources. For example, the resource definition may request 32 processor cores. The relationship graphs may identify that the first selected set of resources/nodes (e.g., three nodes from two racks in node cluster 101-2) include one node in a first rack with a 16-core processor and two nodes in the second rack with 8-core processors with the two racks interconnected by network switches, and may identify that the second selected set of resources/nodes (e.g., three nodes from one rack in node cluster 101-3) include two nodes in the same rack with 16-core processors, a third node in the same rack with an 8-core processor, and with the three nodes being connected on the same communication bus. In this example, controller 100 may select the second set of resources/nodes over the first set of resources/nodes based on the relationships between the second set of resources/nodes indicating lower latency as a result of the inter-processor communication being retained on the common bus rather than having to traverse different network links, different racks, and/or different network equipment.”, col.4, lines 61-67 ; see fig.4 -block 404 (determine set of resources to run application) and block 408 (select different sets of nodes); Examiner Note: the sets of resources identified in step 408, or the first and second set of resources/nodes, equate to the second plurality of host devices among the first plurality)
execute the multiple instances of the software application in parallel on the third plurality of host devices of the second cluster. (“As shown in FIG. 1, controller 100 may select (at 110) the three nodes from the same rack in node cluster 101-3 as the optimal set of resources. Selecting (at 110) the optimal set of resources may include controller 100 sending resource reservation requests to the controller agent on each of the three nodes in node cluster 101-3 in order to reserve the optimal set of resources from those nodes for the particular application, service, and/or software, and/or deploying the particular application, service, and/or software to the controller agents and/or nodes. The controller agents may install, configure, and/or execute the particular application, service, and/or software using the optimal set of resources allocated from the three nodes in node cluster 101-3.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Nallagonda and Frey, in order to provide a system capable of configuring a set of resources which meets both the minimum, and optimization requirements of a request to perform multiple instances of a software application in parallel, thereby creating an optimal cluster which avoids the latency, reliability, security, and overhead issues associated with selecting the first available resources to form a cluster (Frey, [col.1, lines 22-25])
Nallagonda in view of Frey discloses the above limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose transmitting or receiving queries for computing resource information of a cluster.
However, Wu discloses:
transmitting a first set of queries for computing resource information to a first plurality of host devices in a first cluster (“In an example, the cross-cluster computing service environment provides an interface for querying cluster computing resource information. The interface may be one or more of a high performance computer (HPC) list query interface, an application list query interface, an application resource query interface and a job query interface or their combination.”, 0037 ; “When determining the calculation queue required by the job, the determined calculation queue should have a CPU count not less than that of the HPC required by the job.”, 0040 ; Examiner Note: an interface necessarily transmits the queries to the hosts of the cluster)
Receiving the computing resource information from the first plurality of host devices as responses to the first set of queries; (“In an example, the cross-cluster computing service environment provides an interface for querying cluster computing resource information. The interface may be one or more of a high performance computer (HPC) list query interface, an application list query interface, an application resource query interface and a job query interface or their combination.”, 0037 ; “When determining the calculation queue required by the job, the determined calculation queue should have a CPU count not less than that of the HPC required by the job.”, 0040 ; Examiner Note: an interface necessarily receives responses to the queries to the hosts of the cluster)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Nallagonda and Frey with the query transmission and receipt of computing resource information of Wu, in order to provide a system which may query the hosts of a cluster and which improves the speed of problem solving, reducing the possibility of hazards in the future (Wu, [0047].
Nallagonda in view of Frey in further view of Wu discloses the above limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose identifying a third plurality of devices.
However, You discloses:
transmitting a second set of queries for operational information to the second plurality of host devices; receiving the operational information from the second plurality of host devices as responses to the second set of queries (“The method 500 starts in step S11, where the provisioning apparatus obtains component metric information of the processing nodes in the pool. “, 0062 ; “In particular, the pool of processing nodes for which component metric information is obtained in step S11 are the processing nodes managed by the provisioning apparatus and meeting the node resource requirements for executing a target task. “, 0064 ; “It is appreciated by one of the ordinary skill in the art that the above described obtaining of component metric information of the pool of processing nodes, obtaining of task characteristic information of a target task running on a first set of processing nodes, determination of a second set of processing nodes, and determination of critical characteristics are merely examples, any other suitable and/or well-known methods that already exist or will become available in the future, are within the scope of the present disclosure.”, 0082 ; Examiner Note: component metric information equates to operational information ; although not explicitly disclosed, the process of query and response is implicit in the obtaining of component metric information)
based on the operational information, identifying a third plurality of host devices from among the second plurality of host devices that satisfy a cluster requirement specified in the request (“From the second candidate set of processing nodes, those satisfy the third demanding characteristic and at the same time satisfy the second most demanding characteristic in a minimal degree are selected to generate the third candidate set of processing nodes”, 0031 ; “Further, when the above described third condition is utilized to determine the second set of processing nodes, the critical characteristics of the task characteristic information are satisfied in priority by the obtained component metric information of the processing nodes”, 0033 ; Examiner Note: task characteristic information equates to cluster requirement ; although not specified in a request, the combination of Nallagonda with You would provide cluster requirements specified in a request)
the cluster requirement is a cluster-level operational constraint; (“Task characteristics include, for example, CPU capability, memory bandwidth, storage I/O speed and bandwidth, network bandwidth, etc. “, 0050 ; Examiner Note: network bandwidth equates to a cluster-level operational constraint)
based on identifying the third plurality of host devices, generating a second cluster that includes the identified third plurality of host devices and excludes a remainder of the second plurality of host devices the second cluster being distinct from the first cluster; (“one or more other processing nodes are determined by the provisioning apparatus as being the second set of processing nodes, where the first set of processing nodes are entirely different or partially different than the second set of processing nodes. “, 0021 ; “In other words, those processing nodes satisfying the most demanding critical characteristics are selected to generate a first candidate set of processing nodes, from which the processing nodes satisfying the second most demanding critical characteristics and at the same time satisfying the most demanding characteristic in a minimal degree are selected to generate a second candidate set of processing nodes. From the second candidate set of processing nodes, those satisfy the third demanding characteristic and at the same time satisfy the second most demanding characteristic in a minimal degree are selected to generate the third candidate set of processing nodes”, 0031 ; Examiner Note: generating a candidate set of nodes equates to generating a cluster)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Nallagonda in view of Frey in further view of Wu with those of You in order to provide a method which avoids delays in execution of tasks due to the most demanding resource requirements not being met, and at the same time avoids resource waste because of over-provisioning of other less demanding resource requirements of the task, thereby contributing to a higher rate of resource usage (You, [0027]).
As per claim 5, Nallagonda in view of Frey in further view of Wu in further view of You fully discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, You discloses:
the operational information includes at least one of network information or location information from the second plurality of host devices (“Component metric information includes, but is not limited to, metrics of the hardware, software, and network related functionalities. For example, such metrics can include CPU capacity, memory bandwidth, storage I/O speed and bandwidth, network bandwidth, etc.”, 0022 ; Examiner Note: network bandwidth equates to network information)
selecting the third plurality of host devices based on the at least one of the network information or location information. (“Finally, the provisioning apparatus selects from the third candidate set processing nodes that satisfy the requirement of network bandwidth and at the same time have the lowest amount of CPU capacity to generate a final set of processing nodes.”, 0032)
As per claim 11, it is a system claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 15, it is a system claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 5, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 20, it is a C.R.S.M. (see Nallagonda: “ The computer-readable instructions may be stored on an electronic memory device, hard disk, optical disk, or other computer-readable storage medium or non-transitory medium. In an example, the computer-readable instructions can be also be downloaded to a storage medium via a network connection.”, 0024) claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 1, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 21, Nallagonda in view of Frey in further view of Wu in further view of You fully discloses the limitations of claim 20.
Furthermore, You discloses:
The non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 20, wherein the second cluster is a new cluster that does not exist in the distributed computing environment prior to the generation (“Then, the provisioning apparatus selects from the first candidate set the processing nodes that satisfy the memory bandwidth requirement and at the same time have a lowest amount of storage I/O bandwidth to generate a second candidate set of processing nodes.”, 0032 ; Examiner Note: a node pool/cluster being created necessitates that the node pool/cluster did not exist in the distributed system prior to deployment, or generation.)
As per claim 22, it is a method claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 21, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nallagonda (US 9852288 B2) in view of Frey (US 11310342 B1) in further view of Wu (US 20230342191 A1 You (US 20160306673 A1) in further view of Danko (US 20150106788 A1).
As per claim 2, Nallagonda in view of Frey in further view of Wu in further view of You fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose a computing resource requirement specifying a tag requirement.
However, Danko discloses:
the at least one computing resource requirement further specifies a tag requirement (“ FIG. 3 illustrates a simplified block 300 diagram of a test routine 304 being matched to a pod 302 based on their respective tags requirements, according to some embodiments. In this embodiment, the pod 302 comprises a CRM application suite. The required tags 308 of the pod 302 include a release version 310, and an identity federation 312. In other words, the pod 302 requires any test to be compatible with release version 7 and an identity federation login scheme. In this embodiment, the test routine 304 comprises a CRM search test, which can test a search interface of the CRM application suite. The required tags 316 of the test routine 304 include a search interface 322 and an identity federation 324. In other words, for the CRM search test to be compatible with a pod, that pod must provide both a search interface and identity federation login scheme”, 0045)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the system of Nallagonda in view of Frey in further view of Wu in further view of You, with the tag requirements of Danko, in order to provide a set of predefined criteria which may be efficiently stored (Danko, [0034]) to the distributed computing system.
As per claim 12, it is a system claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 2, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nallagonda (US 9852288 B2) in view of Frey (US 11310342 B1) in further view of Wu (US 20230342191 A1) in further view of You (US 20160306673 A1) in further view of Danko (US 20150106788 A1) in further view of Yin (US 11281625 B1).
As per claim 3, Nallagonda in view of Frey in further view of Wu in further view of You in further view of Danko fully discloses the limitations of claim 2, but does not disclose assigning tags to the first plurality of host devices or identifying the second host devices as devices including tags specified in a tag requirement.
However, Yin discloses:
the method further comprises: assigning tags to the first plurality host devices based on the computing resource information (“At block 420, the host computer system may identify, for each computing node of a plurality of computing nodes associated with one or more other software build jobs, a respective set of operational resources installed on the computing node.”, 0053 ; Examiner Note: identifying operational resources, or operational resource tags, associated with host computing resources equates to assigning tags to the host devices)
identifying the second plurality of host devices as host devices that include one or more tags specified in the tag requirement (“At block 430, the host computer system may identify, among the plurality of computing nodes, a computing node having a minimal, among the plurality of computing nodes, difference between a set of operational resources installed in the computing node and the operational resource requirements of the software job.”, 0054 ; Examiner Note: the computing nodes, or host devices, which have a minimal difference in operational resource requirements from those requested, equate to devices which include one or more specified tags- and are the second plurality of devices)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Nallagonda in view of Frey in further view of Wu in further view of You in further view of Danko with those of Yin in order to provide an efficient method of allocation of resources (Yin, [0037]) within the distributed computing system.
As per claim 4, Nallagonda in view of Frey in further view of Wu in further view of You in further view of Danko fully discloses the limitations of claim 2, but does not disclose the tags being predefined.
However, Yin discloses:
the tags are predefined according to at least one of predefined criteria and criteria specified in the request (“Each job may be associated with one or more computing resources tags indicating the type of computing resources that are necessary to execute the job… The computing resources tag may be assigned to a job by tracking module 212, manually assigned by a user via a user interface, or any combination thereof. Tracking module 212 may determine which computing resources tag to assign using, for example, a computing resource tag database. The computing resource tag database may include correlations between job parameters and types of operational computing.”, 0036)
As per claim 13, it is a system claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 3, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As per claim 14, it is a system claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 4, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nallagonda (US 9852288 B2) in view of Frey (US 11310342 B1) in further view of Wu (US 20230342191 A1) in further view of You (US 20160306673 A1) in further view of Ge (WO 2018171587 A1) [published: 2018-09-27, translation: PE2E].
As per claim 7, Nallagonda in view of Frey in further view of Wu in further view of You fully discloses the limitations of claim 5, but does not disclose a cluster requirement including a network requirement.
However, Ge discloses:
the cluster requirement includes at least one of a location requirement and a network requirement (“Optionally, the service feature and the feature of the virtual network function respectively include a service type, a service capacity, a service interface and a connection number, and a service high availability cluster requirement; and determining, by using the following steps, the service feature and the slice template. Feature matching of virtual network features”, Par.5, Summary of the Invention ; Examiner Note: service requirements equate to network requirements)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the system of Nallagonda in view of Frey in further view of Wu in further view of You with the tag requirement including a network requirement of Ge, in order to provide a simplified method for selecting a resource based on network requirements (Ge, [abstract]).
As per claim 17, it is a system claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 7, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nallagonda (US 9852288 B2) in view of Frey (US 11310342 B1) in further view of Wu (US 20230342191 A1) in further view of You (US 20160306673 A1) in further view of Doriott (US 20230122904 A1).
As per claim 8, Nallagonda in view of Frey in further view of Wu in further view of You discloses the limitations of claim 1
Furthermore, Wu discloses:
Based on identifying the first plurality of host devices as available to execute software applications, transmitting the queries to the first plurality of host devices (“In an example, the scheduling service module determines computing resources required by the job to be executed according to the description information, and then determines the job scheduling result according to the obtained computing resources required by the job to be executed and currently available cluster computing resource information obtained through an interface of the cross-cluster computing service environment.”, 0036)
Nallagonda in view of Frey in further view of Wu in further view of You fully discloses the above limitations of claim 8, but does not disclose identifying the first plurality of host devices as host devices that are available for executing software applications.
Prior to transmitting the queries to the first plurality of host devices; identifying the first plurality of host devices as host devices that are available to execute software applications (“Method 200 begins at operation 202, where one or more resource profiles are obtained and stored. For example, resource profiles may be transmitted from resource devices (e.g., resource devices 106, 108) and/or administrator devices (e.g., administrator device 104). In some examples, at least part of the resource information may be transmitted from external sources including. As described above, resource information may include availability, performance, and/or experience.”, 0039 ; Examiner Note: obtaining a resource profile containing resource device availability information equates to identifying host devices which are available )
The system of Nallagonda in view of Frey in further view of Wu in further view of You in further view of Doriott would be capable of identifying the first plurality of hosts as available before querying resource information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Nallagonda in view of Frey in further view of Wu in further view of You with those of Doriott in order to provide a method for resource management within a bare-metal distributed computing system which avoids the processing delays, resource frustration, and unintended behaviors associated with inconsistent resource information (Doriott, [0001]).
As per claim 18, it is a system claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 8, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nallagonda (US 9852288 B2) in view of Frey (US 11310342 B1) in further view of Wu (US 20230342191 A1) in further view of You (US 20160306673 A1) in further view of Yazir (US 20170078409 A1).
As per claim 10, Nallagonda in view of Frey in further view of Wu in further view of You fully discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the user request being received by a device which is external to the distributed computing environment.
However, Yazir discloses:
the request is received from a user computing device external to the distributed computing environment (“In some embodiments, a client 102 issues a request via a web portal or Application Programming Interface (API) (such as a Web Service), and the service request 120 can thus be provided to the root agent 104 by the web portal or API endpoint”, 0074 ; Examiner Note: the device used to access the web portal is implicitly external to the distributed computing environment)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Nallagonda in view of Frey in further view of Wu in further view of You with those of Yazir, in order to allow the system to quickly and accurately determine the host devices (Yazir, [abstract]).
As per claim 19, it is a system claim with substantially the same limitations as claim 10, and as such, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Farhan (US 20160224394 A1) – discloses a method for optimizing distributed workloads by determining workload attributes for distributed execution. Workload attributes are used to determine allocation and configuration of distributed resources.
Shetty (US 12008412 B2) – discloses a method for composition of information handling systems for complex solutions. A composition request is received, comprising a manifest file which is parsed by the system to identify a solution requirement set. A determination is made whether the request may be satisfied by the resources via analysis of telemetry data map and topology graph.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS MICHAEL VINCENT whose telephone number is (703)756-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-5:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, April Blair can be reached on (571) 270-1014. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/R.M.V./
Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights