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 .
Detailed Action
2. The instant application having Application No. 18/103,016 has claims 21, 22, 27-30, 34-35 and 40 pending filed on 01/30/2023; there are 3 independent claims and 6 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner. The applicant canceled the original claims 26, 33 and 39 (dated 09/26/2025).
Response to Arguments
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on September 26, 2025 in response to PTO Office Action dated June 25, 2025. The Applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims and/or specification were considered with the results that follow.
Claim Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
SC § 103 Rejection of claims 21, 22, 27-30, 34-35 and 40
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/26/2025 with respect to the claims 21, 22, 27-30, 34-35 and 40 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
OBJECTIONS
Claim Objection
Claim 35
The independent Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informality:
The amended Claim 35 indicates “… wherein each duplicate data record comprises; an field comprising data indicating system IDs of known duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records; …”. The word “an” should be corrected to “a”. For this office action, the examiner assumes that the claim 35 indicates “… wherein each duplicate data record comprises; a field comprising data indicating system IDs of known duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records; …”. Please make appropriate correction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 21, 22, 27-30, 34-35 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 21
As per the independent claim 21, the claim recites “A system, comprising …
wherein each duplicate data record comprises: a field comprising data indicating system IDs of known duplicate data records … add a system ID of each remaining duplicate data record of the remaining duplicate data records to the field of the enriched active record; … overwrite each of the remaining duplicate data records with the enriched active record to modify the field of each of the remaining duplicate data records to include a list of duplicates from the field of the enriched active record; … ”. It is not clear which “field” is meant by the claim limitations. As per specifications Paragraph [0034] and Fig. 3B, “each data record in storage data model may comprise one or more of a key, data, and metadata. The key may comprise a system ID and metadata may comprise several fields (ACE_ID field, is_active field, AKA field and a last update field)”. The Claim language may not be "ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention." Packard, 751 F.3d at 1311. The applicant is required to make clear and precise the terms that are used to define the invention whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained (Refer MPEP 2173.05(a)). Thus, the above-mentioned limitations render the independent claim 21 indefinite because it is unclear which “field” is meant by the claim limitations.
Independent Claims 28 and 35
The independent claims 28 and 35 have similar limitations as the independent claim 21 and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite for the same reasons as specified supra for the independent claim 21.
Dependent Claims 22, 27, 29-30, 34 and 40
The dependent claims 22, 27, 29-30, 34 and 40 depend directly or indirectly on the independent claims 21, 28 and 35 respectively and are thus rejected for the same reasons as specified supra for the independent claims 21, 28 and 35.
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 21, 22, 27-30, 34-35 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupey et al (US PGPUB 20170091230) in view of Floyd et al (US Patent 9092151) and in further view of Kolbrener et al (US Patent 10282790).
As per claim 21:
Dupey teaches:
“a system, comprising” (Paragraph [0024] (a data storage system includes))
“at least one computing device comprising a processor and a memory” (Paragraph [0026] and Paragraph [0034] (various hardware elements of architecture includes one or more processors and an in-memory implementation. where data may be stored in Random Access Memory))
“storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the at least one computing device to” (Paragraph [0034] (one or more processors execute program code to perform process which may be embodied in processor-executable program code read from one or more of non-transitory computer-readable media))
“select a plurality of duplicate data records from a duplicate data reference set” (Paragraph [0001] (a database table may include several records representing a same object depending upon the source or reception time of the address information stored therein (a duplicate data reference set) and such records may be considered duplicate records))
“wherein each duplicate data record comprises” (Paragraph [0003] (each group of duplicate records includes))
“elect one duplicate data record of the plurality of duplicate data records to be an active record” (Paragraph [0033], Paragraph [0035] and Paragraph [0047] (the processes may facilitate the determination of a master record (active record) from a group of records where the group of records is referred to as a “match” group, in the each record is believed to include data representing a same primary object (duplicate records) and a database schema may include a flag column (active flag) in which to identify a record as a master record)).
Dupey does not EXPLICITLY discloses: a field comprising data indicating system IDs of known duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records; include data in the active record from remaining duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records to create an enriched active record; in response to the enriched active record being created, add a system ID of each remaining duplicate data record of the remaining duplicate data records to the field of the enriched active record; overwrite each of the remaining duplicate data records with the enriched active record to modify the field of each of the remaining duplicate data records to include a list of duplicates from the field of the enriched active record; and store the enriched active record in a data storage.
However, in an analogous art, Floyd teaches:
“a field comprising data indicating system IDs of known duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records” (Col 5 Lines 53-61 (when a duplicate segment is identified by deduplication engine, a reference to the segment can also be stored in a data structure (duplicate record system ID field) where the data structure is able to point directly to the location the duplicate data is stored))
“in response to the enriched active record being created, add a system ID of each remaining duplicate data record of the remaining duplicate data records to the field of the enriched active record” (Col 5 Lines 21-24 and Col 5 Lines 41-42 (the advisory provides metadata necessary for the software layer to determine the duplicate information, the deduplication engine stores the fingerprints in an index that includes multiple entries, each entry storing one of the fingerprints and each entry stores a reference to the segment (a system ID of each remaining duplicate data record of the remaining duplicate data records) corresponding to the fingerprint stored in the entry (field of the enriched active record))).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Floyd and apply them on teachings of Dupey for the system “a field comprising data indicating system IDs of known duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records; in response to the enriched active record being created, add a system ID of each remaining duplicate data record of the remaining duplicate data records to the field of the enriched active record”. One would be motivated as the software layer is also able to improve the accuracy of the advice from the deduplication engine by calling functions to update the index and to provide a sequence number (System ID) along with the application specific metadata (Floyd, Col 4 Lines 22-36).
Dupey and Floyd do not EXPLICITLY disclose: include data in the active record from remaining duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records to create an enriched active record; overwrite each of the remaining duplicate data records with the enriched active record to modify the field of each of the remaining duplicate data records to include a list of duplicates from the field of the enriched active record; and store the enriched active record in a data storage.
However, in an analogous art, Kolbrener teaches:
“include data in the active record from remaining duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records to create an enriched active record” (Col 3 Lines 17-28 (enriching data record while preserving data provenance includes selecting a plurality of data fields from among the plurality of source data records to compile one or more accepted data records, each selected data field in an accepted data record (active record) comprising the best known data from among the plurality of source data records))
“overwrite each of the remaining duplicate data records with the enriched active record to modify the field of each of the remaining duplicate data records to include a list of duplicates from the field of the enriched active record; and store the enriched active record in a data storage” (Col 11 Lines 34-40, Col 11 Lines 56-63 and Col 12 Lines 34-37 (It is possible for multiple copies of the same document to have been introduced to the system, in order for the data set to be used to create a qualifying set of data for the final loan decision, it allows for the values to point to repositories of raw and enriched data sets, the user then choosing the best value and that field, which is updated in the accepted record, in this way, the accepted record becomes a perfected, single data set based on all available source data and a single accepted record may be used to support candidates (overwrite each of the remaining duplicate data records with the enriched active record) in more than one context, and will be the more complete data set))
“and store the enriched active record in a data storage” (Col 11 Lines 56-57 (the use of the CQRS architecture allows for the values to point to repositories of raw and enriched data sets)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Kolbrener and apply them on teachings of Dupey and Floyd for the system “include data in the active record from remaining duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records to create an enriched active record; overwrite each of the remaining duplicate data records with the enriched active record to modify the field of each of the remaining duplicate data records to include a list of duplicates from the field of the enriched active record; and store the enriched active record in a data storage”. One would be motivated as the system can perform the method iby a distributed computing application allowing enrichment of the same plurality of data records by multiple processes in parallel (Kolbrener, Col 4 Lines 1-4).
As per claim 22:
Dupey, Floyd and Kolbrener teach the system as specified in the parent claim 21 above.
Dupey further teaches:
“wherein the machine-readable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the at least one computing device to” (Paragraph [0034] (one or more processors execute program code to perform process which may be embodied in processor-executable program code read from one or more of non-transitory computer-readable media))
“initiate a duplicate data record check” (Paragraph [0002] (once duplicate records are identified))
“retrieve the plurality of duplicate data records from a data store” (Paragraph [0001] (a database table may include several records representing a same object (duplicate data records) like a table storing personal addresses may include several records associated with a same person))
“and generate the duplicate data reference set based at least in part on the plurality of duplicate data records” (Paragraph [0030] (each record has been identified as belonging to a same “group” as evidenced by each record having the same Group_ID where each record in a group is believed to be associated with a same object (duplicate record))).
As per claim 27:
Dupey, Floyd and Kolbrener teach the system as specified in the parent claim 21 above.
Dupey further teaches:
“wherein each of the plurality of duplicate data records comprises an active field” (Paragraph [0032] (it may be desirable to determine a “master record” of the group of duplicate records, after it is determined, the master record may be updated with the “best” values from each column of table and flagged as active, and may be retained while the other duplicate records are flagged as inactive or may be treated in a different matter)).
As per claim 28:
Dupey teaches:
“a method performed by at least one computing device, the method comprising” (Paragraph [0034] (various hardware elements of architecture like one or more processors execute program code to perform process (method), where the process includes))
“selecting a plurality of duplicate data records from a duplicate data reference set” (Paragraph [0001] (a database table may include several records representing a same object depending upon the source or reception time of the address information stored therein (a duplicate data reference set) and such records may be considered duplicate records))
“wherein each duplicate data record comprises” (Paragraph [0035] (a group of duplicate records is determined and each of the records includes))
“electing one duplicate data record of the plurality of duplicate data records to be an active record” (Paragraph [0033], Paragraph [0034], Paragraph [0035] and Paragraph [0047] (the processes using one or more processors, may facilitate the determination of a master record (active record) from a group of records where the group of records is referred to as a “match” group, in the each record is believed to include data representing a same primary object (duplicate records) and a database schema may include a flag column (active flag) in which to identify a record as a master record)).
Dupey does not EXPLICITLY discloses: a field comprising data indicating system IDs of known duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records; including data in the active record from remaining duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records to create an enriched active record; in response to the enriched active record being created, add a system ID of each remaining duplicate data record of the remaining duplicate data records to the field of the enriched active record; overwriting each of the remaining duplicate data records with the enriched active record to modify the field of each of the remaining duplicate data records to include a list of duplicates from the field of the enriched active record; and storing the enriched active record in a data storage.
However, in an analogous art, Floyd teaches:
“a field comprising data indicating system IDs of known duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records” (Col 5 Lines 53-61 (when a duplicate segment is identified by deduplication engine, a reference to the segment can also be stored in a data structure (duplicate record system ID field) where the data structure is able to point directly to the location the duplicate data is stored))
“in response to the enriched active record being created, add a system ID of each remaining duplicate data record of the remaining duplicate data records to the field of the enriched active record” (Col 5 Lines 21-24 and Col 5 Lines 41-42 (the advisory provides metadata necessary for the software layer to determine the duplicate information, the deduplication engine stores the fingerprints in an index that includes multiple entries, each entry storing one of the fingerprints and each entry stores a reference to the segment (a system ID of each remaining duplicate data record of the remaining duplicate data records) corresponding to the fingerprint stored in the entry (field of the enriched active record))).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Floyd and apply them on teachings of Dupey for the method “a field comprising data indicating system IDs of known duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records; in response to the enriched active record being created, add a system ID of each remaining duplicate data record of the remaining duplicate data records to the field of the enriched active record”. One would be motivated as the software layer is also able to improve the accuracy of the advice from the deduplication engine by calling functions to update the index and to provide a sequence number (System ID) along with the application specific metadata (Floyd, Col 4 Lines 22-36).
Dupey and Floyd do not EXPLICITLY disclose: including data in the active record from remaining duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records to create an enriched active record; overwriting each of the remaining duplicate data records with the enriched active record to modify the field of each of the remaining duplicate data records to include a list of duplicates from the field of the enriched active record; and storing the enriched active record in a data storage.
However, in an analogous art, Kolbrener teaches:
“including data in the active record from remaining duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records to create an enriched active record” (Col 3 Lines 17-28 (enriching data record while preserving data provenance includes selecting a plurality of data fields from among the plurality of source data records to compile one or more accepted data records, each selected data field in an accepted data record (active record) comprising the best known data from among the plurality of source data records))
“overwriting each of the remaining duplicate data records with the enriched active record to modify the field of each of the remaining duplicate data records to include a list of duplicates from the field of the enriched active record; and store the enriched active record in a data storage” (Col 11 Lines 34-40, Col 11 Lines 56-63 and Col 12 Lines 34-37 (It is possible for multiple copies of the same document to have been introduced to the system, in order for the data set to be used to create a qualifying set of data for the final loan decision, it allows for the values to point to repositories of raw and enriched data sets, the user then choosing the best value and that field, which is updated in the accepted record, in this way, the accepted record becomes a perfected, single data set based on all available source data and a single accepted record may be used to support candidates (overwrite each of the remaining duplicate data records with the enriched active record) in more than one context, and will be the more complete data set))
“and storing the enriched active record in a data storage” (Col 11 Lines 56-57 (the use of the CQRS architecture allows for the values to point to repositories of raw and enriched data sets)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Kolbrener and apply them on teachings of Dupey and Floyd for the method “including data in the active record from remaining duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records to create an enriched active record; overwriting each of the remaining duplicate data records with the enriched active record to modify the field of each of the remaining duplicate data records to include a list of duplicates from the field of the enriched active record; and storing the enriched active record in a data storage”. One would be motivated as the system can perform the method iby a distributed computing application allowing enrichment of the same plurality of data records by multiple processes in parallel (Kolbrener, Col 4 Lines 1-4).
As per claim 29:
Dupey, Floyd and Kolbrener teach the method as specified in the parent claim 28 above.
Dupey further teaches:
“initiating a duplicate data record check in response to a user input” (Paragraph [0002] and Paragraph [0017] (by providing user interfaces to clients, receiving requests from clients, retrieving data from database based on the requests, processing once duplicate records are identified))
“retrieving the plurality of duplicate data records from a data store” (Paragraph [0001] (a database table may include several records representing a same object (duplicate data records) like a table storing personal addresses may include several records associated with a same person))
“and generating the duplicate data reference set based at least in part on the plurality of duplicate data records” (Paragraph [0030] (each record has been identified as belonging to a same “group” as evidenced by each record having the same Group_ID where each record in a group is believed to be associated with a same object (duplicate record))).
As per claim 30:
Dupey, Floyd and Kolbrener teach the method as specified in the parent claim 28 above.
Dupey further teaches:
“identifying the one duplicate data record based on a determination that the one duplicate data record was previously elected as a previously active record” (Paragraph [0045] and Paragraph [0046] (one or more of the most-selected records are determined which comprises determining a record which was selected a greatest number of times during evaluation of the plurality of rules and the record is therefore identified as the master record of the group of records)).
As per claim 34, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 28 and the claim 27 above.
As per claim 35:
Dupey teaches:
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program instructions that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause at least one computing device to” (Paragraph [0034] (one or more processors execute program code to perform process which may be embodied in processor-executable program code read from one or more of non-transitory computer-readable media))
“select a plurality of duplicate data records from a duplicate data reference set” (Paragraph [0001] (a database table may include several records representing a same object depending upon the source or reception time of the address information stored therein (a duplicate data reference set) and such records may be considered duplicate records))
“wherein each duplicate data record comprises” (Paragraph [0003] (each group of duplicate records includes))
“elect one duplicate data record of the plurality of duplicate data records to be an active record” (Paragraph [0033], Paragraph [0035] and Paragraph [0047] (the processes may facilitate the determination of a master record (active record) from a group of records where the group of records is referred to as a “match” group, in the each record is believed to include data representing a same primary object (duplicate records) and a database schema may include a flag column (active flag) in which to identify a record as a master record)).
Dupey does not EXPLICITLY discloses: a field comprising data indicating system IDs of known duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records; include data in the active record from remaining duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records to create an enriched active record; in response to the enriched active record being created, add a system ID of each remaining duplicate data record of the remaining duplicate data records to the field of the enriched active record; overwrite each of the remaining duplicate data records with the enriched active record to modify the field of each of the remaining duplicate data records to include a list of duplicates from the field of the enriched active record; and store the enriched active record in a data storage.
However, in an analogous art, Floyd teaches:
“a field comprising data indicating system IDs of known duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records” (Col 5 Lines 53-61 (when a duplicate segment is identified by deduplication engine, a reference to the segment can also be stored in a data structure (duplicate record system ID field) where the data structure is able to point directly to the location the duplicate data is stored))
“in response to the enriched active record being created, add a system ID of each remaining duplicate data record of the remaining duplicate data records to the field of the enriched active record” (Col 5 Lines 21-24 and Col 5 Lines 41-42 (the advisory provides metadata necessary for the software layer to determine the duplicate information, the deduplication engine stores the fingerprints in an index that includes multiple entries, each entry storing one of the fingerprints and each entry stores a reference to the segment (a system ID of each remaining duplicate data record of the remaining duplicate data records) corresponding to the fingerprint stored in the entry (field of the enriched active record))).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Floyd and apply them on teachings of Dupey for the non-transitory computer-readable medium “a field comprising data indicating system IDs of known duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records; in response to the enriched active record being created, add a system ID of each remaining duplicate data record of the remaining duplicate data records to the field of the enriched active record”. One would be motivated as the software layer is also able to improve the accuracy of the advice from the deduplication engine by calling functions to update the index and to provide a sequence number (System ID) along with the application specific metadata (Floyd, Col 4 Lines 22-36).
Dupey and Floyd do not EXPLICITLY disclose: include data in the active record from remaining duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records to create an enriched active record; overwrite each of the remaining duplicate data records with the enriched active record to modify the field of each of the remaining duplicate data records to include a list of duplicates from the field of the enriched active record; and store the enriched active record in a data storage.
However, in an analogous art, Kolbrener teaches:
“include data in the active record from remaining duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records to create an enriched active record” (Col 3 Lines 17-28 (enriching data record while preserving data provenance includes selecting a plurality of data fields from among the plurality of source data records to compile one or more accepted data records, each selected data field in an accepted data record (active record) comprising the best known data from among the plurality of source data records))
“overwrite each of the remaining duplicate data records with the enriched active record to modify the field of each of the remaining duplicate data records to include a list of duplicates from the field of the enriched active record; and store the enriched active record in a data storage” (Col 11 Lines 34-40, Col 11 Lines 56-63 and Col 12 Lines 34-37 (It is possible for multiple copies of the same document to have been introduced to the system, in order for the data set to be used to create a qualifying set of data for the final loan decision, it allows for the values to point to repositories of raw and enriched data sets, the user then choosing the best value and that field, which is updated in the accepted record, in this way, the accepted record becomes a perfected, single data set based on all available source data and a single accepted record may be used to support candidates (overwrite each of the remaining duplicate data records with the enriched active record) in more than one context, and will be the more complete data set))
“and store the enriched active record in a data storage” (Col 11 Lines 56-57 (the use of the CQRS architecture allows for the values to point to repositories of raw and enriched data sets)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the teachings of Kolbrener and apply them on teachings of Dupey and Floyd for the non-transitory computer-readable medium “include data in the active record from remaining duplicate data records of the plurality of duplicate data records to create an enriched active record; overwrite each of the remaining duplicate data records with the enriched active record to modify the field of each of the remaining duplicate data records to include a list of duplicates from the field of the enriched active record; and store the enriched active record in a data storage”. One would be motivated as the system can perform the method iby a distributed computing application allowing enrichment of the same plurality of data records by multiple processes in parallel (Kolbrener, Col 4 Lines 1-4).
As per claim 40, the claim is rejected based upon the same rationale given for the parent claim 35 and the claim 27 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Parikh et al, (US PGPUB 20190034475), it is directed to provide a single source for adverse event data by taking a layered approach to standardizing, harmonizing and detecting duplicates across multiple data sources at different scales. The method includes parsing datasets stored in a data store. These datasets are enriched using standardization and normalization. In the candidate duplicates and feature engineering step, the method may join send the data to hashing algorithm to generate candidate duplicates. Features are extracted from each duplicate candidate pair using the term-pair set adjustment technique. These candidates and associate features are sampled using a sampling technique and are labeled as duplicates or non-duplicates. Upon a conflict in labels, a conflict resolution strategy is applied to create a master list of duplicate pairs.
Stojanovic et al, (US PGPUB 20190138538), it relates to perform similarity metric analysis and data enrichment using knowledge sources. A data enrichment service can compare an input data set to reference data sets stored in a knowledge source to identify similarly related data. A similarity metric can be calculated corresponding to the semantic similarity of two or more datasets. The similarity metric can be used to identify datasets based on their metadata attributes and data values enabling easier indexing and high-performance retrieval of data values. A input data set can labeled with a category based on the data set having the best match with the input data set. The similarity of an input data set with a data set provided by a knowledge source can be used to query a knowledge source to obtain additional information about the data set.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL K DEWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2196. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TONY MAHMOUDI can be reached on 571-272-4078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
/Kamal K Dewan/
Examiner, Art Unit 2163
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163