DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1.The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3.Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus. Therefore, the claim is directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that is directed to a judicial expectation, namely a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will henceforth be used as a representative claim for the 101 rejection until otherwise noted. Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining data pertaining to multiple actions performed across one or more software applications by one or more user devices; determining one or more action dependency relationships associated with at least one action performed by a given one of the one or more user devices in connection with a given one of the one or more software applications, by processing at least a portion of the obtained data using one or more artificial intelligence techniques; modifying one or more local administrator rights, granted for the given user device, to permit access to the given user device to perform one or more actions in connection with at least one of the one or more software applications in accordance with the one or more determined action dependency relationships; and performing one or more automated actions based at least in part on the modifying of the one or more local administrator rights; wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers a mental process.
“Obtaining…”, “determining…”, “modifying…”, “performing one or more automated actions…” abstract ideas - namely, these are mental processes that could be performed by a human with a pen and paper, per the MPEP, merely adapting them into the context of a technological environment with computing parts does not preclude them from being abstract.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into practical application. As noted in the MPEP, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements, such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
A computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining data pertaining to multiple actions performed across one or more software applications by one or more user devices; determining one or more action dependency relationships associated with at least one action performed by a given one of the one or more user devices in connection with a given one of the one or more software applications, by processing at least a portion of the obtained data using one or more artificial intelligence techniques; modifying one or more local administrator rights, granted for the given user device, to permit access to the given user device to perform one or more actions in connection with at least one of the one or more software applications in accordance with the one or more determined action dependency relationships; and performing one or more automated actions based at least in part on the modifying of the one or more local administrator rights; wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
As it pertains to Claim 1, the additional elements in the claims include “using one or more artificial intelligence techniques”, “wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory.”, When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under Step 2A Prong Two.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to well-understood and routine activities that are conventional in the art.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected as presenting substantially similar limitations.
Claims 2-10 include limitations which merely further limit the abstract ideas of Claim 1, and are therefore ineligible. Claims 12-15 and 17-20 are rejected as presenting substantially similar limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-6,9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labrecque (US Pat.No.12,288,271) in view of Herzog (US Pat.No.11,831,729).
6. Regarding claims 1,11 and 16 Labrecque teaches a computer-implemented method, a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium and an apparatus comprising: obtaining data pertaining to multiple actions performed across one or more software applications by one or more user devices; determining one or more action dependency relationships associated with at least one action performed by a given one of the one or more user devices in connection with a given one of the one or more software applications, by processing at least a portion of the obtained data using one or more artificial intelligence techniques (Abstract and Col.6, lines.26-31 teaches a lifelogging software application that creates a platform for users to create media content associated with and representative of stories, people, place, events, and other significant moments of an individual's life. The platform creates an environment for individual users to interact with each of and the media content posted thereto. The platform includes a beneficiary and inheritance mechanism that transfers control of media content from one individual to another. The beneficiary system is operable to assign a beneficiary to a user profile, usually a close family member of the user. The beneficiary system is operable to grant administrative control and authority over a user profile upon the happening of an event, usually the passing of the user.
Col.9, lines.60-67 and Col.10, lines.1-44 teaches the beneficiary system is operable to provide administrative rights to a beneficiary user profile upon the passing of a user corresponding to a user profile. The beneficiary system is operable to provide a forum for requesting administrative rights through a request with an admin of the application. In one embodiment, the beneficiary system is operable to automatically grant a user profile administrative rights. In this embodiment, the beneficiary system includes an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system that is operable to identify a valid and correctly identifying power of attorney and/or obituary. Upon determination that the power of attorney is valid and represents the user profile, the application grants administrative rights to the requesting user profile. In one embodiment, upon determination that the obituary is valid and represents the user profile, the application grants administrative rights to the requesting user profile and access to the features of the application. In one embodiment, the beneficiary system is operable to receive a plurality of user profiles as beneficiaries. In one embodiment, the beneficiary system is operable to allow a user profile to tag another user profile as a primary beneficiary, which grants the user profile superior rights over other beneficiaries);
But Labrecque fails to teach modifying one or more local administrator rights, granted for the given user device, to permit access to the given user device to perform one or more actions in connection with at least one of the one or more software applications in accordance with the one or more determined action dependency relationships; and performing one or more automated actions based at least in part on the modifying of the one or more local administrator rights; wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory.
Herzog teaches modifying one or more local administrator rights, granted for the given user device, to permit access to the given user device to perform one or more actions in connection with at least one of the one or more software applications in accordance with the one or more determined action dependency relationships; and performing one or more automated actions based at least in part on the modifying of the one or more local administrator rights; wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory (Figs.8A-B and Col. 33, lines. 30-61 teaches client device 800 may be configured to obtain, from the user, a selection of one or more filter parameters, and may filter the computing devices accordingly, as indicated by block 834. For example, the user may indicate that the user interface is to display unauthorized software applications and/or missing software applications, but is not to display compliant software applications, so that the user can determine how to improve compliance of the relevant computing devices. Based on and/or in response to filtering of the computing devices at block 834, client device 800 may be configured to transmit, to mapping application 600, a request for one or more modifications to the computing devices, as indicated by arrow 836. The request may be based on, for example, a user selection of one or more software applications to be deleted and/or one or more software applications to be installed on corresponding computing devices. Based on and/or in response to reception of the request at arrow 836, mapping application 600 may be configured to generate instructions to execute the one or more modifications, as indicated by block 838. In one example, the instructions may include software instructions configured to cause automated execution of the one or more modifications by the corresponding computing devices. For example, the instructions may include scripts configured to install and/or uninstall relevant software applications from the corresponding computing devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify Labrecque to include modifying one or more local administrator rights, granted for the given user device, to permit access to the given user device to perform one or more actions in connection with at least one of the one or more software applications in accordance with the one or more determined action dependency relationships; and performing one or more automated actions based at least in part on the modifying of the one or more local administrator rights, as taught by Herzog, such a setup would give a predictable result of automatic management of hardware and/or software configuration that is desired and/or intended to be installed on the respective computing device.
7. Regarding claims 2, 12 and 17 Herzog teaches the computer-implemented method, the non-transitory processor-readable storage medium and the apparatus, wherein determining the one or more action dependency relationships comprises processing the at least a portion of the obtained data using one or more supervised learning-based decision tree algorithms (Co. 27 lines 20-28 teaches additionally or alternatively, the word vectors may be provided as input to an ANN, a support vector machine, a decision tree, or some other machine learning algorithm in order to classify or cluster corresponding software applications and/or computing devices, to determine a level of similarity between corresponding software applications and/or computing devices, and/or to perform some other processing task with respect to corresponding software applications and/or computing devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify Labrecque to include determining the one or more action dependency relationships comprises processing the at least a portion of the obtained data using one or more supervised learning-based decision tree algorithms, as taught by Herzog, such a setup would give quick and accurate results.
8. Regarding claims 3, 13 and 18 Herzog teaches the computer-implemented method, the non-transitory processor-readable storage medium and the apparatus, wherein performing one or more automated actions comprises generating one or more workflows comprising instructions for carrying out, in association with the modifying of the one or more local administrator rights, at least a portion of the one or more actions in connection with at the least one of the one or more software applications in accordance with the one or more determined action dependency relationships (Col. 2, lines. 66-67 and Col.3, lines 1-19 teaches comparing the software applications installed on a particular computing device to software applications installed on the reference computing device may reveal a disparity (e.g., difference or discrepancy) between these two sets of software applications. For example, the disparity may indicate compliant software applications that are installed on both the particular computing device and the reference computing device, missing software applications that are installed on the reference computing device but are not installed on the particular computing device, and/or unauthorized software applications that are installed on the particular computing device but are not installed on the reference computing device. The disparity may be saved and/or a visual representation of the disparity may be displayed by way of a user interface. The disparity may be used as a basis for suggesting one or more modifications to software applications of the particular computing device intended to reduce the disparity. The suggested modifications may be executed automatically by a software application based on and/or in response to a user selection of one or more of the modifications).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the means for managing software recommendations as recorded in Herzog to the access control system of Labrecque . Motivation to do so comes from same rationale as outlined in Claim 1 above.
9. Regarding claims 4, 14 and 19 Herzog teaches the computer-implemented method, the non-transitory processor-readable storage medium and the apparatus, wherein modifying one or more local administrator rights granted for the given user device comprises granting one or more additional local administrator rights for the given user device to perform at least a portion of the one or more actions in connection with at the least one of the one or more software applications in accordance with the one or more determined action dependency relationships (Col. 2, lines. 66-67 and Col.3, lines 1-19 teaches comparing the software applications installed on a particular computing device to software applications installed on the reference computing device may reveal a disparity (e.g., difference or discrepancy) between these two sets of software applications. For example, the disparity may indicate compliant software applications that are installed on both the particular computing device and the reference computing device, missing software applications that are installed on the reference computing device but are not installed on the particular computing device, and/or unauthorized software applications that are installed on the particular computing device but are not installed on the reference computing device. The disparity may be saved and/or a visual representation of the disparity may be displayed by way of a user interface. The disparity may be used as a basis for suggesting one or more modifications to software applications of the particular computing device intended to reduce the disparity. The suggested modifications may be executed automatically by a software application based on and/or in response to a user selection of one or more of the modifications).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the means for managing software recommendations as recorded in Herzog to the access control system of Labrecque . Motivation to do so comes from same rationale as outlined in Claim 1 above.
10. Regarding claims 5,15 and 20 Herzog teaches the computer-implemented method, the non-transitory processor-readable storage medium and the apparatus, wherein performing one or more automated actions comprises automatically training at least a portion of the one or more artificial intelligence techniques using feedback related to the modifying of the one or more local administrator rights (Col.8, lines.40-51 teaches in order to reconcile the discrepancy between the reference set of software applications and the set of software applications actually installed on the computing device, a discovery process may be executed to collect information about the software applications installed on each computing device. For example, the collected information may include various attributes associated with software processes corresponding to a given software application. The collected information may be processed to generate, for each respective software application, a corresponding representation thereof, which may be referred to as an application fingerprint. Col. 28, lines 51-67 and Col. 29, lines 1-13 teaches the similarity calculations described above may also be used to cluster similar fingerprints. Such clustering may be performed to provide a variety of benefits. For example, clustering may be applied to a set of fingerprints in order to identify patterns or groups within the set of fingerprints that have relevance to the operation of a system or organization. Such groups may facilitate the tracking of application and/or device configuration changes by measuring a time-dependence of fingerprints assigned to a particular cluster. Additionally, such groups may facilitate the early identification of unauthorized and/or missing software applications. In some examples, clustering may allow similar applications and/or devices (e.g., applications and/or devices corresponding to the same clusters) to be manipulated in common, in order to reduce the time required to carry out a desired modification. Clustering may be performed in an unsupervised manner in order to generate clusters without the requirement of manually-labeled fingerprints, to identify previously unidentified clusters within the fingerprints, or to provide some other benefit. A variety of methods and/or ML algorithms could be applied to identify clusters within a set of fingerprints and/or to assign fingerprints (e.g., fingerprints of newly-discovered applications and/or devices) to already-identified clusters. For example, decision trees, ANNs, k-means, support vector machines, independent component analysis, principal component analysis, or some other method could be trained based on a set of available fingerprints in order to generate an ML model to classify the available fingerprints and/or to classify fingerprints not present in the training set of available fingerprints).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the means for managing software recommendations as recorded in Herzog to the access control system of Labrecque . Motivation to do so comes from same rationale as outlined in Claim 1 above.
11. Regarding claim 6 Herzog teaches the computer-implemented method, wherein determining the one or more action dependency relationships comprises identifying at least one action to be performed in connection with one or more additional ones of the one or more software applications in association with performance of the at least one action performed by the given user device in connection with the given one of the one or more software applications (Figs.8A-B and Col. 33, lines. 30-61 teaches client device 800 may be configured to obtain, from the user, a selection of one or more filter parameters, and may filter the computing devices accordingly, as indicated by block 834. For example, the user may indicate that the user interface is to display unauthorized software applications and/or missing software applications, but is not to display compliant software applications, so that the user can determine how to improve compliance of the relevant computing devices. Based on and/or in response to filtering of the computing devices at block 834, client device 800 may be configured to transmit, to mapping application 600, a request for one or more modifications to the computing devices, as indicated by arrow 836. The request may be based on, for example, a user selection of one or more software applications to be deleted and/or one or more software applications to be installed on corresponding computing devices. Based on and/or in response to reception of the request at arrow 836, mapping application 600 may be configured to generate instructions to execute the one or more modifications, as indicated by block 838. In one example, the instructions may include software instructions configured to cause automated execution of the one or more modifications by the corresponding computing devices. For example, the instructions may include scripts configured to install and/or uninstall relevant software applications from the corresponding computing devices).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the means for managing software recommendations as recorded in Herzog to the access control system of Labrecque . Motivation to do so comes from same rationale as outlined in Claim 1 above.
12. Regarding claim 9 Herzog teaches the computer-implemented method, wherein obtaining data pertaining to multiple actions comprises processing messages sent in connection with at least a portion of the one or more software applications by implementing at least one plugin to one or more graphical user interface (GUI) software development kits (SDKs) of at least one operating system associated with at least a portion of the one or more user devices (Col 2, lines.66-67 and Col. 3, lines 1-19 teaches comparing the software applications installed on a particular computing device to software applications installed on the reference computing device may reveal a disparity (e.g., difference or discrepancy) between these two sets of software applications. For example, the disparity may indicate compliant software applications that are installed on both the particular computing device and the reference computing device, missing software applications that are installed on the reference computing device but are not installed on the particular computing device, and/or unauthorized software applications that are installed on the particular computing device but are not installed on the reference computing device. The disparity may be saved and/or a visual representation of the disparity may be displayed by way of a user interface. The disparity may be used as a basis for suggesting one or more modifications to software applications of the particular computing device intended to reduce the disparity. The suggested modifications may be executed manually by a user, and/or automatically by a software application based on and/or in response to a user selection of one or more of the modifications. By determining the disparities across a plurality of computing devices, the respective sets of software applications installed on computing devices in the network may be adjusted and/or modified to achieve a desired and/or intended state and/or distribution).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the means for managing software recommendations as recorded in Herzog to the access control system of Labrecque . Motivation to do so comes from same rationale as outlined in Claim 1 above.
13. Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labrecque (US Pat.No.12,288,271) in view of Herzog (US Pat.No.11,831,729) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Leung (US Pub.No.2024/0137372).
14. Regarding claim 7 Labrecque in view of Herzog teaches obtaining data pertaining to multiple actions comprises tracking actions performed across the one or more software applications installed on at least a portion of the one or more user devices by registering with one or more operating system channels associated with the at least a portion of the one or more user devices (Herzog: Col. 33, lines 48-61 teaches Based on and/or in response to reception of the request at arrow 836, mapping application 600 may be configured to generate instructions to execute the one or more modifications, as indicated by block 838. In one example, the instructions may include written instructions addressed to one or more programmers, administrators, and/or other users within managed network 300 requesting manual execution of the one or more modifications. In another example, the instructions may include software instructions configured to cause automated execution of the one or more modifications by the corresponding computing devices. For example, the instructions may include scripts configured to install and/or uninstall relevant software applications from the corresponding computing devices); but fails to teach the computer-implemented method, wherein obtaining data pertaining to multiple actions comprises tracking actions performed across the one or more software applications installed on at least a portion of the one or more user devices by registering with one or more operating system channels associated with the at least a portion of the one or more user devices, and monitoring log data generated by the one or more software applications associated the one or more operating system channels.
Leung teaches monitoring log data generated by the one or more software applications associated the one or more operating system channels (Para:0056-0061 teaches monitoring log data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify Labrecque in view of Herzog to include monitoring log data generated by the one or more software applications associated the one or more operating system channels, as taught by Leung, such a setup would give a predictable result of early identification of security threats.
15. Regarding claim 10 Labrecque in view of Herzog teaches all the above claimed limitations but fails to teach the computer-implemented method, wherein obtaining data pertaining to multiple actions comprises processing historical log data associated with at least a portion of the one or more software applications by implementing at least one plugin to one or more log storage mechanisms used by the at least a portion of the one or more software applications installed on the one or more user devices.
Leung teaches obtaining data pertaining to multiple actions comprises processing historical log data associated with at least a portion of the one or more software applications by implementing at least one plugin to one or more log storage mechanisms used by the at least a portion of the one or more software applications installed on the one or more user devices (Para:0056-0061 teaches obtaining historical log data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify Labrecque in view of Herzog to include obtaining data pertaining to multiple actions comprises processing historical log data associated with at least a portion of the one or more software applications by implementing at least one plugin to one or more log storage mechanisms used by the at least a portion of the one or more software applications installed on the one or more user devices as taught by Leung, would give a predictable result of early identification of security threats.
16. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labrecque (US Pat.No.12,288,271) in view of Herzog (US Pat.No.11,831,729) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Babani (US Pub.No.2024/0362349).
17. Regarding claim 8 Labrecque in view of Herzog teaches all the above claimed limitations but fails to teach the computer-implemented method, wherein obtaining data pertaining to multiple actions comprises subscribing to at least one of one or more system events and one or more logging mechanisms provided by at least one operating system associated with at least a portion of the one or more user devices .
Babani teaches obtaining data pertaining to multiple actions comprises subscribing to at least one of one or more system events (Para0066 and Para:0086-0087 teaches subscription to system events), and one or more logging mechanisms provided by at least one operating system associated with at least a portion of the one or more user devices (Para:0086 and Para:0175 teaches system log events).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify Labrecque in view of Herzog to include obtaining data pertaining to multiple actions comprises subscribing to at least one of one or more system events and one or more logging mechanisms provided by at least one operating system associated with at least a portion of the one or more user devices as taught by Babani, such a setup would result in better performance monitoring and optimization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREENA T CATTUNGAL whose telephone number is (571)270-0506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri : 7:30 AM-5 PM 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, Lynn Feild can be reached on 571-272-2092. 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.
/DEREENA T CATTUNGAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431