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
Response to Amendment
This office action has been issued in response to the response filed 12/30/25. Claims 1-16, 21-22 are pending in this application. Applicant's arguments have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive in view of the “response to arguments” section below. The examiner appreciates Applicant's effort to distinguish over the cited prior art by presenting arguments/amendments in an attempt to distinguish or clarify the claimed invention, however, upon further consideration and/or search, the claims remain unpatentable over the cited prior art for the reasons articulated in the “response to arguments” section below. All claims pending in the instant application remain rejected and clarification and/or elaboration regarding why the claims are not in condition for allowance will hereafter be provided in order to efficiently further prosecution. Accordingly, this action is made FINAL.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 & 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obvious relative to claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11334271, in view of Chess US PGPUB # 20040117220 teaching wherein the first copy comprises a subset of the customer data selected to enable a plurality of customer service functionalities comprising at least one of an account verification, an address change, and a phone number update during the transfer process (Chess 0017) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a first copy of data comprising a subset of customer data selected to enable a plurality of customer service functionalities comprising at least one of an account verification, an address change, and a phone number update during the transfer process in the invention of parent patent as taught by Chess because it would be advantageous for providing a secure customer relationship management system to allow a customer to securely access their data (Chess 0004-0008). Dependent claims are rejected on dependency merits.
Application 18527958
A method of providing customer data access during a data migration process, the method comprising: accessing a first copy of customer data partitioned during a transfer process; determining, based on the first copy, a total number of one or more database instances of a first data storage necessary for managing the first copy during the transfer process;transferring the first copy from a data server to the first data storage wherein the first copy comprises a subset of the customer data selected to enable a plurality of customer service functionalities comprising at least one of an account verification, an address change, and a phone number update during the transfer process (obvious in view of Chess 20040117220 0017);receiving an input associated with one or more data migration processes;modifying the first copy based on the input; andtransferring a second copy of data from the data server to a mainframe, the data comprising the customer data, wherein the second copy is inaccessible during the transfer process, and wherein the first copy is different from the second copy.
US Patent # 11334271
1. A method of providing customer data access during a data migration process, the method comprising: receiving first customer feedback associated with one or more previous data migration processes, wherein the first customer feedback is received prior to a start of a transfer process and indicates one or more types of information to include in customer data that remains accessible during the transfer process; determining, based on the first customer feedback, a level of customer service functionality for the customer data, the level based on a portion of the customer data to be accessible during the transfer process; generating a temporary copy of the portion of the customer data based on the level; automatically determining, based on the temporary copy, a total number of one or more database instances of a temporary data storage necessary for managing the temporary copy during the transfer process; transferring the temporary copy from a data server to the total number of the one or more database instances of the temporary data storage, wherein the temporary copy is accessible during the transfer process; receiving second customer feedback associated with one or more subsequent data migration processes; modifying the temporary copy based on the second customer feedback; initiating a transfer of a permanent copy of the customer data from the data server directly to a mainframe, wherein the permanent copy is inaccessible during the transfer process; generating a set of instructions to modify the permanent copy based on any modifications to the temporary copy during the transfer process; and transferring the set of instructions to the mainframe upon completion of the transfer process of the permanent copy from the data server to the mainframe.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election, on 9/4/25, with traverse of Invention I is acknowledged. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Applicant’s election of group I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 12/30/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Regarding applicant’s traversal alleging that the groups “sufficiently overlap in scope such that the examiner’s search for an applicable reference to one set of claims would likely be relevant to the other”, this amounts to a general allegation without specifically pointing out how the restriction requirement is in error, therefore the traversal is not proper under 37 CFR 1.111b.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim limitation: “generating, in real-time and simultaneously with modifying the first copy, an instruction to modify the second copy of data.” is not supported in the original disclosure. A review of 0033, 0035-0037 has not found clear support for this limitation. As such the new limitation(s) amount to new matter.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9-10, 13, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRITCHKO (US PGPUB # 20150254257) in view of Zachrisen (US PGPUB # 20150026127) further in view of Chess (US PGPUB # 20040117220).
With respect to independent claims 1, 9 KRITCHKO/Zachrisen/Chess discloses: A method of providing customer data access during a data migration process [KRITCHKO does not explicitly teach providing customer data access during a data migration process, although this reference does teach providing data access during a data migration - KRITCHKO 0052, fig 2; Zachrisen teaches providing customer data access during a data migration process - Zachrisen abstract], the method comprising:
accessing a first copy of customer data partitioned during a transfer process [first partition copy/replica accessible during migration/transfer process - KRITCHKO 0052, fig 2; customer data may be contained in database replica – KRITCHKO 0075];
determining, based on the first copy, a total number of one or more database instances of a first data storage necessary for managing the first copy during the transfer process [replica/copy is stored in temporary storage - KRITCHKO 0042, 0045, 0048, 0050 in view of fig 2; Periodically, an image of the data in the database is made by reading the data from the database and copying the data to another (temporary) storage area - KRITCHKO 0050];
transferring the first copy from a data server to the first data storage [Microsoft SQL Server data transfer includes: Periodical image/copy of data in a database created by reading data from the database and copying the data to another/temporary storage area - KRITCHKO 0050] wherein the first copy comprises a subset of the customer data selected to enable a plurality of customer service functionalities comprising at least one of an account verification, an address change, and a phone number update during the transfer process [migration agent transfers data from source to target while source partition remains available, and source partition is subset of full database – KRITCHKO fig 2, paragraph 0045-0048. KRITCHKO/Zachrisen does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first copy comprises a subset of the customer data selected to enable a plurality of customer service functionalities comprising at least one of an account verification, an address change, and a phone number update during the transfer process”. Nevertheless in the same field of endeavor Chess teaches management of a customer relationship management database for storing data for each of the plurality of customers related to interactions with the business; a customer interface that allows each customer to access customer specific data; a data subset identification system that allows the customer to identify a subset of the customer specific data; and a CSR interface that allows the CSR to view only the subset of customer specific data – Chess title, abstract, fig 1-2. SCRM system 10 includes various mechanisms that allow both customers 12 and third party 14 to access customer specific data 31. Customer specific data 31 may generally comprise a plurality of data segments (e.g., Data1, Data2 . . . DataN) for a customer. A data segment may comprise any type of data regarding the customer, the third party, or the interactions between the customer and third party 14, e.g., name, address, transaction history, credit history, notes, etc – Chess 0017. Accordingly the combination of KRITCHKO/Zachrisen/Chess teaches wherein the first copy comprises a subset of the customer data selected to enable a plurality of customer service functionalities comprising at least one of an account verification, an address change, and a phone number update during the transfer process];
receiving an input associated with one or more data migration processes [inputs or updates or modifications to data that is source data partition occur during migration - KRITCHKO 0048];
modifying the first copy based on the input [modifications are changes occurring after the transfer is initiated and referred to, cumulatively, as a "source delta" or "deltas" - KRITCHKO 0048]; and
transferring a second copy of data from the data server to a mainframe, the data comprising the customer data, wherein the second copy is inaccessible during the transfer process [a second copy of data is transferred from a source to a target server/mainframe/computer - KRITCHKO 0057 in view of 0091; the second copy is understood to be the copy of data that is accessible at the target location after the completion of the migration process from source to target and as such, the second copy, at the target is inaccessible during the transfer process - KRITCHKO 0057-0059] and wherein the first copy is different from the second copy [first and second copies are different from one another - KRITCHKO 0052, fig 2; customer data may be contained in database replica – KRITCHKO 0075].
KRITCHKO does not explicitly disclose performing the steps of providing customer data access during a data migration process.
Nevertheless, in the same field of endeavor Zachrisen teaches migrating customer data between systems without downtime (Zachrisen title, abstract) wherein a no-downtime level of customer service functionality is provided such that at some amount of customer data is accessible during a transfer process (Zachrisen 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide customer data access during a data migration process in the invention of KRITCHKO as taught by Zachrisen because it would be advantageous to provide customers with a no-downtime level of data access and customer service, so as to enhance customer satisfaction while their data may be undergoing a migration process (Zachrisen 0011).
KRITCHKO/Zachrisen does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first copy comprises a subset of the customer data selected to enable a plurality of customer service functionalities comprising at least one of an account verification, an address change, and a phone number update during the transfer process”. Nevertheless in the same field of endeavor Chess teaches management of a customer relationship management database for storing data for each of the plurality of customers related to interactions with the business; a customer interface that allows each customer to access customer specific data; a data subset identification system that allows the customer to identify a subset of the customer specific data; and a CSR interface that allows the CSR to view only the subset of customer specific data – Chess title, abstract, fig 1-2. SCRM system 10 includes various mechanisms that allow both customers 12 and third party 14 to access customer specific data 31. Customer specific data 31 may generally comprise a plurality of data segments (e.g., Data1, Data2 . . . DataN) for a customer. A data segment may comprise any type of data regarding the customer, the third party, or the interactions between the customer and third party 14, e.g., name, address, transaction history, credit history, notes, etc – Chess 0017, 0028. Accordingly the combination of KRITCHKO/Zachrisen/Chess teaches wherein the first copy comprises a subset of the customer data selected to enable a plurality of customer service functionalities comprising at least one of an account verification, an address change, and a phone number update during the transfer process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a first copy of data comprising a subset of customer data selected to enable a plurality of customer service functionalities comprising at least one of an account verification, an address change, and a phone number update during the transfer process in the invention of KRITCHKO/Zachrisen as taught by Chess because it would be advantageous for providing a secure customer relationship management system to allow a customer to securely access their data (Chess 0004-0008).
With respect to dependent claim 2, 10 KRITCHKO/Zachrisen/Chess discloses generating a set of instructions to modify the second copy based on any modifications to the first copy during the transfer process; and transferring the set of instructions to the mainframe upon completion of the transfer process of the second copy from the data server to the mainframe [various methods exist for applying commands/instructions based on any modifications to a first copy during a transfer process, including: A "transaction log," of each change or modification to the data, in the order the change occurs. This capability allows the transformation of the data from one state recorded in a data image to a later state in time simply by applying the transaction log commands after the time the image was made to the image – KRITCHKO 0048-0050].
With respect to dependent claim 5, 13 KRITCHKO/Zachrisen/Chess discloses wherein modifying the first copy during the transfer process comprises receiving a user input to modify a piece of customer information via a graphical user interface (GUI) displayed on a customer service representative terminal [client system may comprise an in-store personal computer (PC), an interactive kiosk, and the like - Zachrisen 0015 in view of abstract teaching: Migrating data between systems without downtime. Data migration may be performed by selecting one or more data records for migration from a first record system to a second record system, and copying the one or more data records from the first record system to the second record system in manner where the data record remains accessible and available during the migration].
With respect to dependent claim 21 KRITCHKO/Zachrisen/Chess discloses generating, in real-time and simultaneously with modifying the first copy, an instruction to modify the second copy of data [atomic updates - KRITCHKO].
With respect to dependent claim 22 KRITCHKO/Zachrisen/Chess discloses wherein the first data storage is configured to automatically increase or decrease the total number of the one or more database instances based on changes in data usage [the use of partitions and replicas implies that the number of instances or partitions can be scaled to meet load/demand, particularly in view of the disclosure that “resources 100 may be taken on and off-line and additional resources may be added” – KRITCHKO fig 1, paragraph 0023. Moreover the examiner is taking official notice that auto-scaling would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention because it would be advantageous for making the most efficient use of limited resources – evidenced by 0038-0040 of Chakrabarti US PGPUB # 20180183578].
Claims 3-4, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRITCHKO/Zachrisen/Chess further in view of Fridrich (US PGPUB # 20090228525).
With respect to dependent claim 3, 11 KRITCHKO/Zachrisen/Chess does not explicitly disclose the limitations of the instant claim. Nevertheless, in the same field of endeavor Fridrich teaches managing global organization records (Fridrich title, abstract, 0003, 0005) wherein modifications to organization records are stored in a modification history log to record, for example, information concerning the modification(s) made, the date of the modification(s), and/or an identification of the user, user device, or system administrator who made the modification(s) – Fridrich 0036. Therefore the combination of KRITCHKO/Zachrisen/Chess/Fridrich discloses: the modifications to the first copy during the transfer process comprise modifications made to the first copy by a customer service representative terminal; and the set of instructions include a record of a customer service representative who made the modifications and a log of associated actions [Modifications to organization records are stored in modification history log to record, for example, information concerning the modification(s) made, the date of the modification(s), and/or an identification of the user, user device, or system administrator who made the modification(s) – Fridrich 0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create a digital footprint of modification(s) which identify the user/administrator/individual who made the modifications, or stated another way, a record of a customer service representative who made the modifications and a log of associated actions in the invention of KRITCHKO/Zachrisen/Chess as taught by Fridrich because it would be advantageous for efficiently managing global shared records and ascertaining responsibility for modifications thereto (Fridrich 0003-0007).
With respect to dependent claim 4, 12 KRITCHKO/Zachrisen/Chess/Fridrich discloses wherein the modifications to the first copy are recorded in a digital footprint including a record of (i) users who made the modifications and (ii) associated actions for each user [Fridrich 0036].
Claims 6, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRITCHKO/Zachrisen/Chess further in view of Stacey (US PGPUB # 20060212481).
With respect to dependent claim 6, 14 KRITCHKO/Zachrisen/Chess does not explicitly disclose that the first copy requires 10% or less of the storage space used by the second copy – although it is apparent that the temporary copy of an object in the transfer space will occupy only a small fraction of the storage space required by the entire set of objects stored in a permanent copy of the a full volume. Nevertheless, in the same field of endeavor Stacy teaches file migration policies and temporary copy (snapshots) which may be sized at 10% of a production volume - Stacy 0036. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to size a temporary copy of data within a range of 1-10% in the invention of KRITCHKO/Zachrisen/Chess as taught by Stacey because it would be advantageous for facilitating file access in heterogeneous network environments and for fostering system scalability (Stacy – abstract in view of 0035-0037). Therefore the combination of KRITCHKO/Zachrisen/Chess/Stacey discloses wherein the first copy requires 10% or less of storage space used by the second copy [a read-write snapshot is initially allocated an amount of free space for read stub files and changed files that is a small fraction of the storage space used by the production file system. For example, the read-write snapshot is initially allocated an amount of free space that is 10% of the storage space used by the production file system - Stacy 0036].
Claims 7-8, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRITCHKO/Zachrisen/Chess further in view of Campbell (US PGPUB # 20060026012).
With respect to dependent claim 7, 15 KRITCHKO/Zachrisen/Chess does not explicitly disclose the limitations of the instant claim. Nevertheless, in the same field of endeavor Campbell teaches automated capture, analysis and modification of migrations performed on customer data systems (Campbell abstract, 0020, 0023) wherein means are provided for a user feedback driven iterative migration process. Therefore the combination of KRITCHKO/Zachrisen/Chess/Campbell teaches: receiving a second input associated with one or more previous data migration processes, wherein the second input is received prior to a start of the transfer process and indicates one or more types of information to include in the customer data that remains accessible during the transfer process; and generating the first copy [Data from users interacting with client machines in the client migration pilot process is monitored and data corresponding to expected functions is captured in real-time. Captured interaction data is subsequently analyzed with respect to a baseline of expected user interactions for said migrated software system, to determine the existence of difficulty in interacting with a new software system. If difficulty is indeed detected, either the migration plan or current service offerings are adjusted to meet users' expectations – Campbell abstract, fig 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a user feedback driven iterative migration process in the invention of KRITCHKO/Zachrisen/Chess as taught by Campbell because it would be advantageous for achieving a refined a migration process based on analysis of captured user feedback (Campbell 0002).
With respect to dependent claim 8, 16 KRITCHKO/Zachrisen/Chess/Campbell teaches wherein generating the first copy includes applying data conditioning techniques to the first copy to reduce storage space used by the first copy [KRITCHKO 0046-0047].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the prior art. All claims pending in the instant application remain rejected. Please note that any rejections/objection not maintained from the previous Office Action have been rectified either by applicant's amendment and/or persuasive argument(s).
Regarding applicant’s arguments on page 9-11, that amended claims are not taught by the cited art [The examiner respectfully submits that amended grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments to the claims have rendered the remarks moot/unpersuasive, particularly in view of the combination of prior art including newly found Chess reference as integrated into the rationale above.]
Remaining arguments are understood to be predicated on the previous arguments being persuasive and thus are unpersuasive at least on dependency merits.
All remarks are understood to have been addressed herein. If any issues remain which may be clarified by the examiner, the applicant is invited to contact the examiner to set up a telephone interview.
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARWAN AYASH whose telephone number is (571)270-1179. The examiner can normally be reached 9a-730p M-R.
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, Rocio del Mar Perez-Velez can be reached on 571-270-5935. 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.
/Marwan Ayash/ - Examiner - Art Unit 2133
/ROCIO DEL MAR PEREZ-VELEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2133