DETAILED ACTION
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax, Regular postal mail, or EFS Web (PTO/SB/439).
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 .
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 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.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Regarding claim 1, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP §2106.03. The claim recites method steps; thus, the claim is directed to a process which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The limitations “setting, by the first instance, the value of the identifier of the primary instance to a first identifier of the first instance in response to the value of the identifier of the primary instance being unset” and ”updating data associated with the identifier of the primary instance, by the first instance while performing the exclusive task, to the exclusion of each other instance of the plurality of instances.” as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong 2, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
In this case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “in the database” “horizontally scaled service executing in public cloud”
are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional element “querying, by a first instance of a plurality of instances of the horizontally scaled service, a database for a value of an identifier of a primary instance, the primary instance configured to perform an exclusive task, each of the plurality of instances other than the primary instance configured to defer the exclusive task to the primary instance” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because the element is regarding data gathering and applying the method for execution, thus is categorized as insignificant extra solution activity, thus not practical application under prong 2. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the “in the database” “horizontally scaled service executing in public cloud” are merely a generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims include additional elements “querying, by a first instance of a plurality of instances of the horizontally scaled service, a database for a value of an identifier of a primary instance, the primary instance configured to perform an exclusive task, each of the plurality of instances other than the primary instance configured to defer the exclusive task to the primary instance” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are essentially regarding data gathering and applying method for execution. Under step 2B, the courts have identified data gathering as well understood routine and conventional. See MEPE 2106.05d.
Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims include additional elements “ further comprising: querying, by a second instance of the plurality of instances of the service, the database for the value of the identifier of the primary instance; and functioning, by the second instance, as a secondary instance of the service in response to the value of the identifier of the primary instance being set, each secondary instance of the service excluded from updating the data associated with identifier of the primary instance in the database. .” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 3, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “wherein the database is configured to unset the value of the identifier of the primary instance after a threshold time period during which the first instance does not update the data.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 4, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “further comprising: querying, by a second instance of the plurality of instances of the service, the database for the identifier of the primary instance; setting, by the second instance, the value of the identifier of the primary instance to a second identifier of the second instance in response to the value of the identifier of the primary instance being unset.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 5, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “further comprising: updating data associated with the identifier of the primary instance in the database, by the second instance, to the exclusion of each other instance of the plurality of instances.”
This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 6, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “ wherein the data associated with the identifier of the primary instance comprises status data for a task being performed by the horizontally scaled service, and wherein the exclusive task comprises updating the status data.
This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 7, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “ wherein the horizontally scaled service comprises an entitlement service configured create the task, the task configured to entitle software in a data center in communication with the public cloud.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 8, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “wherein the public cloud is in communication with a data center through a messaging fabric, wherein the horizontally scaled service executing in the public cloud establishes a connection with endpoint software executing in the data center by exchanging messages, over the messaging fabric, with an agent platform appliance, and wherein the exclusive task is to track status of a task sent by the horizontally scaled service to the endpoint software.” does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, because it fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “establishing connection” and “track status” and it is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 9, is an independent medium claim and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. In particular, the claim recites additional elements –non-transitory computer readable medium--. The medium is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic medium) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 10-14, are dependent medium claims corresponding to 2-5, and 8, respectively and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15, is an independent system claim and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. In particular, the claim recites additional elements –virtualized computing system, a public cloud --. The system and cloud are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic system, public cloud) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The additional element “an entitlement agent of an agent gateway appliance executing in the data center, the entitlement service configured to entitle endpoint software in the data center, the entitlement service comprising a plurality of instances and configured to select a primary instance of the plurality of instances” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because the execution step is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 16-20 are dependent system claims corresponding to claim 2-6, respectively and are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werth et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2013/0103973) in view of Spears et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2012/0266252).
Regarding claim 1, Werth teaches a method of selecting a primary instance (i.e. primary instance is one that is tasked with exclusive function as described in applicant’s specification ¶[0012], therefore, the service responding to a request for a type of work is the primary instance, a specific type of work as the exclusive function) of a horizontally scaled service executing in a public cloud (see ¶[0009] “determining automatically, by the centralized service responsive to the request, a type of work for the request and the plurality of services corresponding to the type of work”), comprising:
querying, by a first instance of a plurality of instances of the horizontally scaled service, a database for a value of an identifier of a primary instance (see ¶ [0185] “the centralized service may identify each of the services making up the bundle or compilation of services. The centralized service may identify each of the services based on a name of the compilation or bundle and querying a database identifying each of the services in the bundles. The centralized service may identify each of the services from an encoding of the bundle name or identifier. The centralized service may identify each of the services from content of the request.”), the primary instance configured to perform an exclusive task (i.e. exclusive task is the one task of a service, see ¶[0094 describing “perform one task of a service, select and assign a system to perform another task of a service and select and identify onsite or local labor to perform yet another task of the service”), each of the plurality of instances other than the primary instance configured to defer the exclusive task to the primary instance (see ¶ [0345] “The centralized service may identify one or more local automation services to deliver to the remote device corresponding to the identified service. The local automation service may be configured to perform, deliver or provide the identified service. For example, a local automation service may be designed, constructed or configured to perform, deliver or provide any one or more of the following: virus removal, spyware removal, operating system installation, computer tune up, e-mail setup, peripheral configuration, software or application installation, network setup, wireless setup, browser support, new computer setup, file transfer, database backup service, antivirus installation, computer accessories setup, troubleshooting, diagnostics and printer setup.”);
setting, by the first instance, the value of the identifier of the primary instance to a first identifier of the first instance (see ¶[0179] “The type for a service may be identified by a name, code or identifier. In some embodiments, the type is identified by the centralized service by the name, core of identifier of the service. The service identifier may encode the type. The service name and/or type identifiers may be created, encoded, managed and organized in any manner.”).
Werth does not expressly disclose setting in response to the value of the identifier of the primary instance being unset in the database, and updating data associated with the identifier of the primary instance in the database, by the first instance while performing the exclusive task, to the exclusion of each other instance of the plurality of instances.
However, Spiers teaches setting in response to the value of the identifier of the primary instance being unset in the database (see ¶ [0182] “The VM instance 342A may erase all confidential information and security files, such as public-private key pairs and other files, before finalizing the booting of the instance. The VM instance 342A may re-configure the network settings copied from the operating system template to be specific to this instance.” Note: primary instance is being unset because the VM instance is erased), and updating data associated with the identifier of the primary instance in the database, by the first instance while performing the exclusive task, to the exclusion of each other instance of the plurality of instances (see ¶[0076] “The cloud provider may update the inventory every time new physical infrastructure 338 containing a TPM is added or removed from the cloud infrastructure 310. At that time, the cloud provider may provide to the tenant an updated key inventory with an updated list of keys. The keys may by audited by physically interrogating a specific physical infrastructure 338 (e.g., by booting the physical infrastructure 338 from trusted media and querying the TPM 344 directly to verify the keys in the inventory associated with the physical infrastructure 338). The tenant may store validated keys, as well as keys which fail validation, in internal database 322 for use during a process of remote attestation of a Measured VM 342.” Note: the data is updated keys, i.e. identifiers, it is excluding other instances because only one instance is being added).
Hence, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to modify the teachings of Werth by adapting Spiers to improve cloud computing environment (see ¶[0003] of Spiers).
Regarding claim 2, Werth does not expressly disclose, however Spiers teaches further comprising: querying, by a second instance of the plurality of instances of the service, the database for the value of the identifier of the primary instance (see ¶ [0066] “With reference to element 8, cloud orchestrator 318 may attempt to extract at least one of the VIP address I, unique authentication code U, or any other identifiers from the PXE boot request, and use this information for querying the internal database 322 to determine if there is a reservation R having matching information.”),
functioning, by the second instance, as a secondary instance of the service in response to the value of the identifier of the primary instance being set, each secondary instance of the service excluded from updating the data associated with identifier of the primary instance in the database (see ¶[0050] “The tenant may request that the cloud environment instantiate a new instance of a VM that may be completely empty without any executable code, in which case the executable code such as, for example, a bootloader may be supplied by the tenant over a network. The bootloader may include instructions informing the VM of how the VM is to operate and may, for example, facilitate loading of an operating system. The bootloader may be the operating system itself, may include a workload, or both. An ordinary VM may not be trusted, but the process described below may permit a tenant to verify integrity and authenticity of a VM, as well as the hardware and software running the VM, prior to forwarding the bootloader and the workload.”).
Hence, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to modify the teachings of Werth by adapting Spiers to improve cloud computing environment (see ¶[0003] of Spiers).
Regarding claim 3, Werth does not expressly disclose, however Spiers teaches wherein the database is configured to unset the value of the identifier of the primary instance after a threshold time period during which the first instance does not update the data (see ¶ [0154] “For example, if a given phase (e.g., create phase, boot phase, unlock phase, connect phase, etc.) doesn't finish within a predetermined threshold (e.g., a time duration threshold), then the cloud orchestrator 318 (or secure boot server 1204) may determine that an anomalous event has occurred and abort the process (e.g., sending instructions to abort the process, deleting/designating the reservation as void, denying the request for components, and/or other cautionary actions).”).
Hence, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to modify the teachings of Werth by adapting Spiers to improve cloud computing environment (see ¶[0003] of Spiers).
Regarding claim 4, Werth does not expressly disclose, however Spiers teaches further comprising: querying, by a second instance of the plurality of instances of the service, the database for the identifier of the primary instance (see ¶[0101] “With reference to element 8, cloud orchestrator 318 may attempt to extract at least one of the VIP address I, unique authentication code U, or any other identifiers from the PXE boot request, and use this information for querying the internal database 322 to determine if there is a reservation R having matching information.”); setting, by the second instance, the value of the identifier of the primary instance to a second identifier of the second instance in response to the value of the identifier of the primary instance being unset (see ¶[0178] “The VM instance 342A may, as a result of the secure boot process, start booting the virtual machine instance with the received and/or unlocked components. In an alternate example, the secure cloud zone 306 may generate (see step 1109) unique OS or other components by, for example, patching one or more of the stored OS (or other) components using approved organization processes, such that unique components may be recreated in a secure manner. The unique components may comprise at least one of: unique identifier (e.g., network address, IP address, MAC address, cloud provider instance identifier, virtualization platform instance identifier, etc.), configuration settings, unique data elements (e.g., cryptographic materials such as one or more multiple private/public key pairs and/or digital certificates), and/or binaries/binary code (e.g., bootloader, operating system component, virtualization platform component, device driver, application, etc.)”).
Hence, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to modify the teachings of Werth by adapting Spiers to improve cloud computing environment (see ¶[0003] of Spiers).
Regarding claim 5, Werth does not expressly disclose, however Spiers teaches further comprising: updating data associated with the identifier of the primary instance in the database, by the second instance, to the exclusion of each other instance of the plurality of instances (see ¶[0177] “In step 1003, the cloud zone 306 (e.g., secure boot server 1204) may send the first token to organization network 302 (e.g., cloud orchestrator system 318) to verify that the first token from the VM instance is authorized. In addition, the cloud zone 306 may communicate information to the organization network 302 to identify the OS components (e.g., kernel and/or ramdisk) to provide to the VM instance. The organization network 302 may communicate with an internal database to access the reservation stored on it, to verify (see step 1103) the first token, and/or to retrieve the location of the unique OS components and/or other components. In addition, the cloud orchestrator system 318 may record (see step 1104) a second token in association with the request for the virtual machine (e.g., the reservation) as was done for the first token. The organization network 302 may communicate with the internal database to update the reservation for the virtual machine instance based on this information.”).
Hence, it would be obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to modify the teachings of Werth by adapting Spiers to improve cloud computing environment (see ¶[0003] of Spiers).
Regarding claim 6, Werth teaches wherein the data associated with the identifier of the primary instance comprises status data for a task being performed by the horizontally scaled service (see ¶[0323] “systems and methods of present solution provide for the delivery of automated services via configurable packages that are selectable on a user interface by a support agent based on entitlement of the user to the services and/or capabilities of the support agent”), and wherein the exclusive task comprises updating the status data (see ¶[0141] “A status 655 of the issue 650 is communicated to the point of service from the centralized service 110. The status 655 may be a function of one or more statuses of the one or more tasks.”).
Regarding claim 7, Werth teaches wherein the horizontally scaled service comprises an entitlement service configured create the task, the task configured to entitle software in a data center in communication with the public cloud (see ¶ [0323] “systems and methods of present solution provide for the delivery of automated services via configurable packages that are selectable on a user interface by a support agent based on entitlement of the user to the services and/or capabilities of the support agent” see ¶ [0057] “Although FIG. 1 shows a plurality of networks including network 104a between the devices 101 and the centralized service 110 and networks 104d-104g between the centralized service 110 and the resources, any or all of the devices 101, the centralized service 110, and the resources may be on the same network 104. In one embodiment, any of the networks 104 may be the same type of network or different types of networks. The network 104 can be a local-area network (LAN), such as a company Intranet, a metropolitan area network (MAN), or a wide area network (WAN), such as the Internet or the World Wide Web. The network(s) 104 may be a private or public network.”).
Regarding claim 8, Werth teaches wherein the public cloud is in communication with a data center through a messaging fabric, wherein the horizontally scaled service executing in the public cloud establishes a connection with endpoint software executing in the data center by exchanging messages, over the messaging fabric, with an agent platform appliance, and wherein the exclusive task is to track status of a task sent by the horizontally scaled service to the endpoint software (see ¶[0090] “In some embodiments, an agent may send out broadcast messages to find other agents on a network. In some embodiments, an agent may be configured with network identification information of one or more agents to use to establish communications. In some embodiments, an agent may query or request the centralized service to identify information about the other agents, such as network identifier information, (IP address/domain name and/or port) of device executing the agent.”).
Regarding claim 9, is an independent medium claim corresponding with claim 1, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Werth teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions to be executed in a computing device to cause the computing device to carry out a method of selecting a primary instance of a horizontally scaled service executing in a public cloud (see ¶[0063] memory, see ¶[0057] public network).
Regarding claim 10-14, are dependent medium claims, corresponding to claims 2-5, 8, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, is an independent system claim corresponding with claim 1, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Werth teaches a virtualized computing system, comprising: a public cloud in communication with a data center through a messaging fabric over a public network (see ¶[0057] public network); and an entitlement service executing in the public, and an entitlement agent of an agent gateway appliance executing in the data center, the entitlement service configured to entitle endpoint software in the data center, the entitlement service comprising a plurality of instances and configured to select a primary instance of the plurality of instances (see ¶ [0096] “The system may perform any type and form of entitlement services regarding the user's entitlement to software and software licenses for the device. The system may perform any type and form of license granting and management such any licenses for software and services. The system may perform any type and form of warranty service and management, including automating device or component repair, return and/or replacement services.”).
Regarding claim 16-20, are dependent system claims, corresponding to claims 2-6, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Interview Requests
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.133(a)(3), requests for interview must be made in advance. Interview requests are to be made by telephone (571-270-7848) call or FAX (571-270-8848). Applicants must provide a detailed agenda as to what will be discussed (generic statement such as “discuss §102 rejection” or “discuss rejections of claims 1-3” may be denied interview). The detail agenda along with any proposed amendments is to be written on a PTOL-413A or a custom form and should be faxed (or emailed, subject to MPEP 713.01.I / MPEP 502.03) to the Examiner at least 5 business days prior to the scheduled interview. Interview requests submitted within amendments may be denied because the Examiner was not notified, in advance, of the Applicant Initiated Interview Request and due to time constraints may not be able to review the interview request to prior to the mailing of the next Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vasudev et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2017/0076295) teaches configuring service consoles based on service feature templates using a database system. In some implementations, a database of a database system storing service feature templates can be maintained. A request for a service console comprising a console component can be processed. A service feature template comprising a template console component corresponding to the console component can be identified. A set of CRM records can be identified. It can be determined that a user has access to the console component. A graphical representation of the service console can be displayed in a user interface on a display of a device of the user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARINA YUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9-4 (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 call.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. 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.
Carina Yun
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/CARINA YUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2194