DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to applicant’s communication filed 12/18/2025.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 8, 10-12, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Claims 2-7, 9, 13, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art have been fully considered but are respectfully moot given the new grounds for rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 10-12, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YOKOHATA (US 2016/0353614 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, YOKOHATA teaches a datacenter cooling system, (¶ 42, Fig. 2 cooling apparatus 30, which cools a calculation unit 25) comprising: a primary cooling loop (¶ 43, Fig. 2: primary cooling loop comprised of the pipes 21a-d) comprising at least one primary flow control valve (¶ 43, Fig. 2 valve 18) disposed downstream from a chilling unit (¶ 42, Fig. 2 chiller 11. Valve 18 is downstream from the chiller unit) along a primary coolant flow path between the chilling unit and a heat exchanger (¶ 42, heat exchanger 16) of a coolant distribution unit (CDU), (¶ 42, Fig. 2 CDU 15. The valve 18 is part of the CDU and included downstream from the chilling unit as in between the chilling unit and the heat exchanger of the CDU.) wherein the CDU comprises a pump associated with the primary cooling loop, (¶ 43, Fig. 2 pump 13 is included in the primary cooling loop. While the pump is grouped with the chilling unit, the pump coming after the chilling unit or being within the CDU before the valve is within the scope of the reference.)
the at least one primary flow control valve to control an amount of flow of primary coolant into the heat exchanger of the CDU at a primary flow rate (¶ 37: “the flow rate of the cooling water flowing into the heat exchanger 16 is changed by the three-way valve (flow regulating valve) 18 so as to cope with a sudden change in the calorific value of the calculator 25.” Fig. 7 and ¶ 72 teach an embodiment where a two-way valve is used. The flow rate of the coolant going into the CDU is adjusted by the control valve. See ¶ 48, 64, and 59.)
that is determined based in part on heat generated from one or more computing devices (Fig. 2 computing devices 25) to be addressed by a secondary coolant, (¶ 32-35, 46, 56-59: Temperature of a secondary coolant (flowing through pipes 22a-c as illustrated in Fig. 2) is determined and a calorific value of the computing devices 25 being cooled by the secondary coolant is determined.)
the secondary coolant to be cooled in the CDU by the primary coolant at the primary flow rate enabled by the at least one primary flow control valve. (¶ 48, 59-60: Based on the temperature values and calorific value of the computing devices being cooled, the primary coolant is set to flow at a flow rate enabled at least in part by the control valve 18. The degree that the valve is opened enables the flow rate into the CDU or into a bypass path. See ¶ 37, 64, and 90.)
Claim 10 is directed to a process and Claim 15 is directed to a method for datacenter cooling but they otherwise recite the same limitations as claim 1. Claim 10 and Claim 15 are therefore rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 8, YOKOHATA further teaches wherein further comprising: a sensor to provide input associated with the heat generated from one or more computing devices to a processor; and the processor to enable the primary flow rate for the primary coolant. (Fig. 2 temperature sensors 31a-b provide input associated with heat generated from computing devices 25 to a main controller and sub-controller 35/36, which enable the primary flow rate for the primary coolant using pump 13 and control valve 18. See ¶ 48-60, which discusses use of the sensor inputs associated with the heat generated by the computing device.)
Claim 18 is directed to the method of claim 15 but otherwise recites the same limitations as claim 8. Claim 18 is therefore rejected using the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 11, YOKOHATA further teaches further comprising: an output of the one or more circuits coupled to the at least one primary flow control valve to provide a first signal to the at least one primary flow control valve to cause the primary flow rate of the primary coolant to be provided to the CDU. (Fig. 2 sub-controller 36 provides an output signal to the control valve 18 to cause the primary flow rate of the primary coolant to be provided to the CDU. See ¶ 37, 48, 59, 64, and 90.)
Regarding Claim 12, YOKOHATA further teaches further comprising: an input adapted to receive sensor inputs from a sensor to enable the processor to determine the heat generated from one or more computing devices. (Fig. 2 temperature sensors 31a-b and flow rate sensor 32 provide input associated with heat generated from computing devices 25 to a main controller and sub-controller 35/36, which enable the primary flow rate for the primary coolant using pump 13 and control valve 18. See ¶ 48-60, which discusses use of the sensor inputs associated with the heat generated by the computing device, including actually determining the heat generated by the computing devices to then determine the settings for the pump 13 and valve 18.)
Regarding Claim 14, YOKOHATA further teaches further comprising: at least one logic unit to determine the primary flow rate of the primary coolant to cool the secondary coolant in the CDU based on sensor inputs received from a sensor associated with the secondary coolant or the one or more computing devices. (Fig. 2 sensors 31a-b and 32 provide input associated with the secondary coolant, namely temperature and flow rate, to a main controller and sub-controller 35/36, which enable the primary flow rate for the primary coolant using pump 13 and control valve 18. See ¶ 48-60, which discusses use of the sensor inputs associated with the secondary coolant to determine the flow rate of the primary coolant.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-3, 6, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOKOHATA (US 2016/0353614 A1) in view of MATSUO (US 2024/0284634 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, YOKOHATA teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 2 depends.
YOKOHATA further teaches wherein the CDU comprises the at least one primary flow control valve. (Fig. 2: CDU 15 comprises the primary flow control valve 18. ¶ 42-43)
While YOKOHATA teaches determining a temperature of a secondary coolant and that the flow rate controlled by the primary control valve is determined based on the temperature of the secondary coolant (¶ 60), YOKOHATA does not teach further comprising: at least one processor to determine a secondary flow rate or a plurality of secondary flow rates for the secondary coolant based in part on a workload for the one or more computing devices and to enable the primary flow rate for the primary coolant based in part on the secondary flow rate or on the plurality of secondary flow rates
However, MATSUO, which is similarly directed to a liquid coolant circulation system including controlling the amount of flow of primary and secondary coolants, teaches further comprising: at least one processor to determine a secondary flow rate or a plurality of secondary flow rates for the secondary coolant based in part on a workload for the one or more computing devices (¶ 141-142, 151: A processor 70 determines a secondary flow rate of the liquid coolant from a flow rate sensor. The secondary flow rate is determined by “the operation state of the electronic device” which “has a correlation with the calorific value of the electronic device”, i.e. based in part on a workload of the electronic device. See Fig. 10, which shows the correlation between the jobs being executed by the electronic devices and the load on the devices.)
and to enable the primary flow rate for the primary coolant based in part on the secondary flow rate or on the plurality of secondary flow rates, (¶ 141, 148-150: The primary flow rate, which is the target flow rate of the cooling water, is based in part on the secondary flow rate, which is the target flow rate of the liquid coolant. The secondary flow rate is pre-stored based on the cooling setting or communicated to the controller of the primary flow rate.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the data center cooling system with primary and secondary coolants taught by YOKOHATA by determining a plurality of flow rates of the secondary coolant based on the workload of the data center and determining the flow rate of the primary coolant based on determined second flow rates as taught by MATSUO. Since the references are similar in configuration and are both directed to data center cooling, the combination would have yielded predictable results and would have amounted to incorporating the techniques of MATSUO into the system of YOKOHATA. As taught by MATSUO (¶ 148, 151), this would have allowed for proper cooling while minimizing the power spent by the chilling unit, which is similar to the goal of YOKOHATA.
Regarding Claim 3, YOKOHATA teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 3 depends.
While YOKOHATA teaches determining the flow rate for the primary coolant loop (¶ 56-60), YOKOHATA does not teach further comprising: at least one processor to determine a workload for the one or more computing devices, to determine a secondary flow rate or a plurality of secondary flow rates for the secondary coolant based in part on the workload, and to enable the primary flow rate for the primary coolant based in part on the secondary flow rate or on the plurality of secondary flow rates.
However, MATSUO, which is similarly directed to a liquid coolant circulation system including controlling the amount of flow of primary and secondary coolants, teaches further comprising: at least one processor to determine a workload for the one or more computing devices, to determine a secondary flow rate or a plurality of secondary flow rates for the secondary coolant based in part on the workload, (¶ 141-142, 151: A processor 70 determines a secondary flow rate of the liquid coolant from a flow rate sensor. The secondary flow rate is determined by “the operation state of the electronic device” which “has a correlation with the calorific value of the electronic device”, i.e. based in part on a workload of the electronic device. See Fig. 10, which shows the correlation between the jobs being executed by the electronic devices and the load on the devices.)
and to enable the primary flow rate for the primary coolant based in part on the secondary flow rate or on the plurality of secondary flow rates. (¶ 141, 148-150: The primary flow rate, which is the target flow rate of the cooling water, is based in part on the secondary flow rate, which is the target flow rate of the liquid coolant. The secondary flow rate is pre-stored based on the cooling setting or communicated to the controller of the primary flow rate.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the data center cooling system with primary and secondary coolants taught by YOKOHATA by determining a plurality of flow rates of the secondary coolant based on the workload of the data center and determining the flow rate of the primary coolant based on determined second flow rates as taught by MATSUO. Since the references are similar in configuration and are both directed to data center cooling, the combination would have yielded predictable results and would have amounted to incorporating the techniques of MATSUO into the system of YOKOHATA. As taught by MATSUO (¶ 148, 151), this would have allowed for proper cooling while minimizing the power spent by the chilling unit.
Claim 20 is directed to the method of claim 15 but otherwise recites the same limitations as claim 3. Claim 20 is therefore rejected using the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 6, YOKOHATA teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 6 depends.
YOKOHATA further teaches wherein further comprising: at least one processor to determine the primary flow rate based in part… a second return temperature of the secondary coolant. (¶ 47, 51-53, Fig. 2 temperature sensors 31a-b: The primary flow rate controlled by the main controller and the sub-controller using the pipe 13 and the valve 18 is determined at least in part based on a return temperature of the secondary coolant.)
YOKOHATA does not teach determining the flow rate based at least in part on a first return temperature of the primary coolant
However, MATSUO, which is similarly directed to a liquid coolant circulation system including controlling the amount of flow of primary and secondary coolants, teaches determining the flow rate based at least in part on a first return temperature of the primary coolant (¶ 87-88, 101: The target flow rate of the cooling water, i.e. the primary flow rate, is based at least in part on an outlet temperature, or return temperature, of the primary coolant.
MATSUO further teaches determining the flow rate based on the return temperature of the secondary coolant: ¶ 177: The secondary flow rate is determined from the return outlet temperature of the secondary coolant. In combination with the “Fourth Embodiment” (See ¶ 148), the primary flow rate would then also be based on the outlet temperature of the secondary coolant since the primary flow rate is based on the secondary flow rate.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the data center cooling system with primary and secondary coolants taught by YOKOHATA in view of MATSUO by determining the flow rate of the primary coolant based on the return temperatures of the primary and the secondary coolants as further taught by MATSUO. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and is at least suggested by MATSUO (¶ 91, 93), to calculate the flow rate of the cooling water for cooling the secondary coolant based on the temperatures of the coolants flowing into the CDU and the chilling unit in order to optimize a desired level of cooling.
Claim 16 is directed to the method of claim 15 but otherwise recites the same limitations as claim 6. Claim 16 is therefore rejected using the same reasoning discussed above.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOKOHATA (US 2016/0353614 A1) in view of GWIN (US 2022/0217876 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, YOKOHATA teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 4 depends.
YOKOHATA further teaches and to determine the primary flow rate based in part on the secondary flow rate, and to enable the primary flow rate based in part on the secondary flow rate. (¶ 47, 51-53: A flow rate of the secondary coolant is determined using a sensor and the flow rate of the primary coolant is controlled by the main controller and the sub-controller using the pump 13 and the valve 18 based at least in part by the sensed secondary flow rate.)
YOKOHATA does not teach further wherein further comprising: at least one processor to determine that a secondary flow rate of the secondary coolant to address the heat generated is a threshold below a rated maximum for the CDU
However, GWIN, which is similarly directed to a CDU for a data center, teaches further wherein further comprising: at least one processor to determine that a secondary flow rate of the secondary coolant to address the heat generated is a threshold below a rated maximum for the CDU (¶ 32-34: A determination is made that a workload is between two threshold settings and the valve for the secondary coolant is partially opened so that the flow rate of secondary coolant through a heat exchanger is below a rated maximum flow rate. Below the lower setting, the heat exchanger would be completely bypassed, and above the higher setting, the secondary coolant would flow at the maximum rate.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the data center cooling system with primary and secondary coolants taught by YOKOHATA by determining the flow rate of the primary coolant based on determined secondary flow rate of a secondary coolant being a threshold below a maximum as taught by GWIN. Since the references are similar in configuration and are both directed to data center cooling, the combination would have yielded predictable results and would have amounted to incorporating the techniques of GWIN into the systems taught by YOKOHATA. As taught by GWIN (¶ 18-21), such a combination would improve the energy efficiency of the system by allowing for the cooling loops to flow at various settings other than maximum data center workload.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOKOHATA (US 2016/0353614 A1) in view of MATSUO (US 2024/0284634 A1) and further in view of GWIN (US 2022/0217876 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, YOKOHATA teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 5 depends.
YOKOHATA does not teach determining the primary flow rate based on a difference in a first temperature associated with the primary coolant and a second temperature associated with a threshold from a rated maximum temperature for the CDU.
However, MATSUO, which is similarly directed to a liquid coolant circulation system including controlling the amount of flow of primary and secondary coolants, teaches determining the primary flow rate based on a difference in a first temperature associated with the primary coolant and a second temperature associated with a threshold from a rated maximum temperature for the CDU. (MATSUO, ¶ 163-164, 173, 177: A different is calculated between a temperature associated with the primary coolant and a temperature associated with a rated maximum temperature or below.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the data center cooling system with primary and secondary coolants taught by YOKOHATA by determining the flow rate of the primary coolant based on a temperature difference from a rate maximum as taught by MATSUO. Since the references are similar in configuration and are both directed to data center cooling, the combination would have yielded predictable results and would have amounted to incorporating the techniques of MATSUO into the system of YOKOHATA. As taught by MATSUO (¶ 148, 151), this would have allowed for proper cooling while minimizing the power spent by the chilling unit, which is similar to the goal of YOKOHATA.
While YOKOHATA teaches determining the flow rate for the primary coolant loop based on the workload of a device being cooled (¶ 56-60), YOKOHATA in view of MATSUO does not teach further wherein further comprising: at least one processor to determine the primary flow rate based in part on a ratio of a secondary workload associated with the one or more one computing devices.
However, GWIN, which is similarly directed to a CDU for a data center, teaches further wherein further comprising: at least one processor to determine the primary flow rate based in part on a ratio of a secondary workload associated with the one or more one computing devices (¶ 32, 46-47, Fig. 6A. A primary flow rate is determined by a combined workload, which is an equivalent to a ratio of a secondary workload.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the data center cooling system with primary and secondary coolants taught by YOKOHATA in view of MATSUO by determining the flow rate of the primary coolant based on determined secondary flow rate of a secondary coolant and a threshold difference in temperature of the primary coolant as taught by GWIN. Since the references are similar in configuration and are both directed to data center cooling, the combination would have yielded predictable results and would have amounted to incorporating the techniques of GWIN into the system of YOKOHATA. As taught by GWIN (¶ 18-21), such a combination would improve the energy efficiency of the system by allowing for the cooling loops to flow at various settings other than maximum data center workload, as well as maintaining the coolants as a heat source when the data center is not running at maximum workload.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOKOHATA (US 2016/0353614 A1) in view of GAO (US 2022/0217873 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, YOKOHATA teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 7 depends.
YOKOHATA does not teach wherein further comprising: at least one processor to determine a change in pressure of the secondary coolant as being associated with a change in the heat generated from the one or more computing devices and to determine the primary flow rate based in part on the change in pressure.
However, GAO, which is similarly directed to a CDU connected to primary and secondary loops (¶ 43-48), teaches wherein further comprising: at least one processor to determine a change in pressure of the secondary coolant as being associated with a change in the heat generated from the one or more computing devices and to determine the primary flow rate based in part on the change in pressure. (¶ 59-63, 73-76: A change in pressure associated with a change in heat generated by a plurality of computing devices is used to determine a flow rate of coolant in a primary loop by adjusting valves according to signals from a controller.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the data center cooling system with primary and secondary coolants taught by YOKOHATA by determining the flow rate of the primary coolant based on a change of pressure of the coolant as measured by pressure sensors as taught by GAO. Since the references are similarly directed to cooling distribution units used in data centers, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As taught by GAO (¶ 21-25), incorporating pressure sensing would improve the reliability of the cooling system and allow it to self-regulate.
Claim 17 is directed to the method of claim 15 but otherwise recites the same limitations as claim 7. Claim 17 is therefore rejected using the same reasoning discussed above.
Claims 9, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOKOHATA (US 2016/0353614 A1) in view of YI (US 2013/0190930 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, YOKOHATA teaches all the limitations of claim 8, on which claim 9 depends.
While YOKOHATA teaches receiving sensor input and determining a primary flowrate from the sensor input (See the rejection of claim 8), YOKOHATA does not teach a neural network. YOKOHATA therefore does not teach wherein further comprising: one or more neural networks to receive sensor input from the sensor, to infer the heat generated from one or more computing devices using the sensor input, and to enable the primary flow rate for the primary coolant.
However, YI, which is directed to energy saving control for a data center, teaches wherein further comprising: one or more neural networks to receive sensor input from the sensor, to infer the heat generated from one or more computing devices using the sensor input, and to enable the primary flow rate for the primary coolant. (¶ 28-34: A neural network receives sensor input data and outputs inferences regarding the environmental temperature and air flow speed and recommended settings for a data center air conditioning system.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the determination of a primary flow rate based on sensor data for the datacenter cooling system taught by YOKOHATA by using a trained neural network to determine the flow rate from the sensor data and the inferred heat generated by the computing devices of the datacenter as taught by YI. Since the references are similarly directed to data center cooling systems, the combination would have yielded predictable results and would have amounted to determining the flow rate adjustment in YOKOHATA by using a neural network trained to make inferences about the data center cooling system. As taught by YI (¶ 41), such an implementation would have been advantageous to a person of ordinary skill in the art since it would allow the system to “monitor and respond to changes of the load and power consumption in rack 101 in real-time, so as to be able to realize energy saving of DCAC 200 while satisfying the cooling demand of the data center 100 in a more timely and effective manner.”
Claim 13 is directed to the processor of claim 10 but otherwise recites the same limitations as claim 9. Claim 13 is therefore rejected using the same reasoning discussed above.
Claim 19 is directed to the method of claim 18 but otherwise recites the same limitations as claim 9. Claim 19 is therefore rejected using the same reasoning discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gao (US 2020/0315059 A1) teaches an immersion cooling system including a valve and a pump between a chilling unit an a heat exchanger of a CDU. (Fig. 1, ¶ 19-20)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI RAFAT OKASHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 EST.
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, SCOTT BADERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/RAMI R OKASHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118