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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea under the mental process without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a computer-implemented method (claims 1-11), a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium (claims 12-16), and an apparatus (claims 17-20) under step 1 . Re claim 1 , a computer-implemented method comprising: identifying a modification to at least one resource-related value associated with a cloud computing platform by processing data related to the at least one resource-related value in connection with at least one temporal period; processing multiple forms of cloud computing platform-related parameter data in connection with the at least one temporal period; determining, based at least in part on the processing of the multiple forms of cloud computing platform-related parameter data, that no related modification corresponding to the identified modification to the at least one resource-related value has occurred in the at least one temporal period with respect to one or more cloud computing platform-related parameters associated with the multiple forms of cloud computing platform-related parameter data; and performing one or more automated actions based at least in part on determining that no related modification corresponding to the identified modification to the at least one resource-related value has occurred in the at least one temporal period with respect to the one or more cloud computing platform-related parameters; wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory. The limitations A “identifying…” and C “determining…” as drafted above , are function s that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. Th ese limitation s encompass a human mind carrying out the se function s through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong I step 2A . Under Prong II step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . The other limitations including B “processing…” and D “performing…” above are considered as additional elements. However, these additional elements merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application under Prong II. The additional element E “wherein the method…coupled to a memory” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer , and/or generic computer component s . Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05( f ) and (g), respectively . Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above in prong 2, the additional elements B “processing…” and D “performing…” above merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea . In addition, t he additional element E “wherein the method…coupled to a memory” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer , and/or generic computer component s. See for example Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 , MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Re claim 2, recites further additional elements “ performing one or more automated actions comprises automatically detecting at least one cloud computing platform-related anomaly based at least in part on determining that no related modification corresponding to the identified modification to the at least one resource-related value has occurred in the at least one temporal period with respect to the one or more cloud computing platform-related parameters ,” however, t hese additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or apply the exception using generic computer , and/or generic computer component s. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements recited in this claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under prong II , nor amount to significantly more under step 2B. Re claim 3, recites further additional elements “ automatically initiating remediation of the at least one cloud computing platform-related anomaly by modifying one or more cloud computing platform resources , ” however, t hese additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or apply the exception using generic computer , and/or generic computer component s. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements recited in this claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under prong II, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B. Re claim 4, recites further additional elements “ performing one or more automated actions comprises proactively updating billing information with respect to one or more users of the cloud computing platform in connection with the identified modification to the at least one resource-related value ,” however, t hese additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or apply the exception using generic computer , and/or generic computer component s. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements recited in this claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under prong II, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B. Re claim 5, recites further additional elements “ processing multiple forms of cloud computing platform-related parameter data comprises processing two or more of application deployment-related data, incoming request volume-related data, and cloud computing platform resource configuration-related data ,” however, t hese additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or apply the exception using generic computer , and/or generic computer component s. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements recited in this claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under prong II, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B. Re claim 6, the limitation “ identifying a modification to at least one resource-related value associated with a cloud computing platform comprises identifying a cost increase associated with at least one given cloud computing platform resource ” recites additional mental process under Prong I step 2A. Thus, there is no the additional elements recited in this claim and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under prong II, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B. Re claim 7, the limitation “ identifying a cost increase associated with at least one given cloud computing platform resource comprises identifying a cost increase associated with at least one of application programming interface management services offered in connection with the cloud computing platform, a serverless structured query language database offered in connection with the cloud computing platform, and an application monitoring service offered in connection with the cloud computing platform ” recites additional mental process under Prong I step 2A. Thus, there is no the additional elements recited in this claim and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under prong II, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B. Re claim 8, the limitation “ processing data related to the at least one resource-related value in connection with at least one temporal period comprises monitoring, using at least one cloud-related monitoring tool, data related to the at least one resource-related value in real-time. ” is considered as additional element and analyzed under Prong II step 2A as mere data gathering or obtaining which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or amounts to significantly more under Step 2B for the reasons provided in the rejection of claim 1. Re claim 9, the limitation “ identifying a modification to at least one resource-related value associated with a cloud computing platform comprises identifying a modification to the at least one resource-related value which exceeds a predetermined threshold value ” recites additional mental process under Prong I step 2A. Thus, there is no the additional elements recited in this claim and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under prong II, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B. Re claim 1 0, the limitation “ performing one or more automated actions comprises automatically generating and outputting, to at least one provider of the cloud computing platform, an alert comprising information pertaining to the identified modification to the at least one resource-related value and lack of corresponding modification to the one or more cloud computing platform-related parameters. ” is analyzed under Prong II step 2A as additional elements however, t he additional element s merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05( g ) . In addition, t hese additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or apply the exception using generic computer , and/or generic computer component s. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements recited in this claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under prong II, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B. Re claim 1 1 , the limitation “ generating and outputting an alert comprises generating and outputting an alert comprising resource details related to the identified modification to the at least one resource-related value and historical audit data of the one or more cloud computing platform-related parameters. ” is analyzed under Prong II step 2A as additional elements however, t he additional element s merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05( g ) . In addition, t hese additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or apply the exception using generic computer , and/or generic computer component s. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements recited in this claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under prong II, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B. Re claim 1 2, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, the claim recite s further additional elements “ non-transitory processor-readable storage medium having stored therein program code of one or more software program, wherein the program code when executed by at least one processing device cause the at least one processing device .” These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer , and/or generic computer component s . See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements recited in this claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under P rong II , nor amount to significantly more under step 2B. Re claim 1 3, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2. Re claim 1 4, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3. Re claim 1 5, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5. Re claim 1 6, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6. Re claim 1 7, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, the claim recite s further additional elements “ at least one processing device…being configured. ” These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer , and/or generic computer component s. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements recited in this claim do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under P rong II , nor amount to significantly more under step 2B. Re claim 1 8, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2. Re claim 1 9, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3. Re claim 20, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim (s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabrera et al. (U.S. 11,398,990) in view of Jain et al. (U.S. 9,595,054 ) . Re claim 1 , Cabrera et al. disclose in Figures 1-11 a computer-implemented method (e.g. abstract and Figure 1 with the network anomaly detection system) comprising: identifying a modification to at least one resource-related value associated with a cloud computing platform by processing data related to the at least one resource-related value in connection with at least one temporal period (e.g. col. 2 lines 31-36; col. 5 lines 10-43; and col. 23 line 63 to col. 24 line 10 wherein a modification/change to the resource in cloud network for a period of time) ; determining, based at least in part on the processing of the multiple forms of cloud computing platform-related parameter data, that no related modification corresponding to the identified modification to the at least one resource-related value has occurred in the at least one temporal period (e.g. Figures 4-6 and col. 2 line 65 to col. 3 line 12 and col. 5 line 62 to col. 6 line 20 wherein anomaly event occurs during the resource modification period ) ; and performing one or more automated actions based at least in part on determining that no related modification corresponding to the identified modification to the at least one resource-related value has occurred in the at least one temporal period with respect to the one or more cloud computing platform-related parameters (e.g. abstract, Figures 7-8, col. 8 lines 5-20 and col. 9 lines 30-42 wherein corrective action is applied once anomaly detected ) ; wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory (e.g. Figures 1 and 10-11 with physical structure ) . Cabrera et al. teach cloud network (e.g. col. 23 line 62 to col. 24 line 10) but do not explicit teach processing multiple forms of cloud computing platform-related parameter data in connection with the at least one temporal period and with respect to one or more cloud computing platform-related parameters associated with the multiple forms of cloud computing platform-related parameter data . However, Jain et al. disclose in Figures 1- 9 processing multiple forms of cloud computing platform-related parameter data in connection with the at least one temporal period and with respect to one or more cloud computing platform-related parameters associated with the multiple forms of cloud computing platform-related parameter data (e.g. abstract, Figure 1, and col. 3 line 54 to col. 4 line 55 wherein multiple cloud platforms data is managed and processed accordingly for a period of time ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add processing multiple forms of cloud computing platform-related parameter data in connection with the at least one temporal period and with respect to one or more cloud computing platform-related parameters associated with the multiple forms of cloud computing platform-related parameter data as thoroughly seen in Sundararajan et al.’s invention into Cabrera et al.’s invention by combining because it would enable to efficiently managing resources across cloud heterogenous networks. Re claim 2, Cabrera et al. in view of Jain et al. disclose performing one or more automated actions comprises automatically detecting at least one cloud computing platform-related anomaly (e.g. Cabrera et al. – abstract and col. 2 line 55 to col. 3 line 21 with resource utilization and/or pattern) based at least in part on determining that no related modification corresponding to the identified modification to the at least one resource-related value has occurred in the at least one temporal period with respect to the one or more cloud computing platform-related parameters (e.g. Cabrera et al. – Figures 4-6 and col. 2 line 65 to col. 3 line 12 and col. 5 line 62 to col. 6 line 20 wherein anomaly event occurs during the resource modification period and Jain et al. – abstract, Figure 1, and col. 3 line 54 to col. 4 line 55 wherein multiple cloud platforms data is managed and processed accordingly for a period of time ) . Re claim 3, Cabrera et al. in view of Jain et al. disclose automatically initiating remediation of the at least one cloud computing platform-related anomaly by modifying one or more cloud computing platform resources (e.g. Cabrera et al. – col. 3 lines 34-54 with suspend, increase, or reduce resources) Re claim 4, Cabrera et al. in view of Jain et al. disclose performing one or more automated actions comprises proactively updating billing information with respect to one or more users of the cloud computing platform in connection with the identified modification to the at least one resource-related value (e.g. Cabrera et al. – col. 9 line 56 to col. 10 line 2 and col. 16 line 60 to col. 17 line 6 and Jain et al. – col. 1 lines 44-60 and col. 17 line 10 to col. 18 line 3 with billing associated with the resource changes/modification and utilization ) . Re claim 5, Cabrera et al. in view of Jain et al. disclose processing multiple forms of cloud computing platform-related parameter data comprises processing two or more of application deployment-related data, incoming request volume-related data, and cloud computing platform resource configuration-related data (e.g. Cabrera et al. – col. 5 lines 11-24 and col. 21 lines 1-31 and col. 21 lines 18-31 and col. 22 lines 7-12 with storage data and configuration data ) . Re claim 6, Cabrera et al. in view of Jain et al. disclose identifying a modification to at least one resource-related value associated with a cloud computing platform comprises identifying a cost increase associated with at least one given cloud computing platform resource (e.g. Jain et al. – col. 2 lines 46-57, col. 6 line 21 to col. 7 line 2 , and col. 7 line 65 to col. 8 line 19 with cost associated with resources changes/modifications ) . Re claim 7, Cabrera et al. in view of Jain et al. disclose identifying a cost increase associated with at least one given cloud computing platform resource (e.g. Jain et al. – col. 2 lines 46-57, col. 6 line 21 to col. 7 line 2, and col. 7 line 65 to col. 8 line 19 with cost associated with resources changes/modifications) comprises identifying a cost increase associated with at least one of application programming interface management services offered in connection with the cloud computing platform (e.g. Jain et al. – col. 18 lines 13-35 associated with API) , a serverless structured query language database offered in connection with the cloud computing platform, and an application monitoring service offered in connection with the cloud computing platform (e.g. Jain et al. – col. 3 lines 26-55) . Re claim 8, Cabrera et al. in view of Jain et al. disclose processing data related to the at least one resource-related value in connection with at least one temporal period comprises monitoring, using at least one cloud-related monitoring tool, data related to the at least one resource-related value in real-time (e.g. Cabrera et al. – Figures 1 and 9 with monitor component 114 and col. 22 lines 7-25 with monitoring network for resource in real-time and Jain et al. – col. 18 lines 41-64 with resource monitoring system ) . Re claim 9, Cabrera et al. in view of Jain et al. disclose identifying a modification to at least one resource-related value associated with a cloud computing platform comprises identifying a modification to the at least one resource-related value which exceeds a predetermined threshold value (e.g. Cabrera et al. – abstract, col. 6 lines 9-30 and Jain et al. – col. 29 lines 43-65 ) . Re claim 1 0, Cabrera et al. in view of Jain et al. disclose performing one or more automated actions comprises automatically generating and outputting, to at least one provider of the cloud computing platform, an alert (e.g. Cabrera et al. – col. 22 lines 8-20 with report/alert and Jain et al. – col. 7 lines 3-40 with notification ) comprising information pertaining to the identified modification to the at least one resource-related value and lack of corresponding modification to the one or more cloud computing platform-related parameters (e.g. Cabrera et al. – col. 3 lines 34-54 with suspend, increase, or reduce resources and Jain et al. – col. 12 lines 26-50 with corrective action with resources ) . Re claim 1 1 , Cabrera et al. in view of Jain et al. disclose generating and outputting an alert comprises generating and outputting an alert comprising resource details related to the identified modification to the at least one resource-related value and historical audit data of the one or more cloud computing platform-related parameters (e.g. Cabrera et al. – col. 8 line 59 to col. 9 line 30 with reported/messaged data over time as historical and Jain et al. – col. 22 lines 44-62 ) . Re claim 1 2, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1. Re claim 1 3, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2. Re claim 1 4, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3. Re claim 1 5, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5. Re claim 1 6, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6. Re claim 1 7, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1. Re claim 1 8, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2. Re claim 1 9, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3. Re claim 20, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent No. 9,595,054 discloses a system for managing allocation of resources based on service level agreements between application owners and cloud operators . U.S. Patent No. 12,580,932 discloses a utomated deployment of an anomaly detection framework, including: receiving data describing a deployment of an anomaly detection framework in a cloud computing environment; generating, based on the data, a bundle of configuration resources for deploying the anomaly detection framework in the cloud computing environment . U.S. Patent No. 12,373,324 discloses a computerized method for detection of format drift and format anomalies . U.S. Patent No. 12,147,893 discloses an approach for training a recurrent neural network to create a model for anomaly detection in the topology of a networ k. U.S. Patent No. 11,888,870 discloses e mbodiments detect cyberattack campaigns against multiple cloud tenants by analyzing activity data to find sharing anomalies . U.S. Patent No. 11,398,990 discloses techniques for detecting and diagnosing anomalies in utilization levels of network-based resources . U.S. Patent No. 10,375,169 discloses a method maximize the availability of cloud services in the event of a disruption to one or more cloud servers by automatically triggering the live migration of selected cloud services and automatically performing the triggered migration of such services . U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0223579 discloses a method for detecting and remediating anomalies in a container system by a storage system comprises detecting, by a container storage management system, a change in resources utilized on a volume of the container system by an application of the container system . U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0168822 discloses sy stems and methods for monitoring hosted computing resource usage wherein software receives usage information of a software application executing on at least one of a plurality of computing resources to determine anomalies in usage and the software accessing external sources to identifies a predicted future anomaly and modifies availability of computing resources for execution of the software application as a way to improve the outcome of data modelling by recognizing repeated anomalous patterns . U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0121242 discloses a n impact risk value is calculated as a weighted combination of the pillar values . U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0403291 discloses an a nomaly detection system that generates a resource group including a plurality of resources of a monitored environment based on a grouping property . U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0319083 discloses an outlier detection system analyzes metric data . U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0259632 discloses security activity data from multiple environments instead of only a single environment. Activity data includes alerts, anomaly detections, and defensive actions . U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0214308 discloses t echniques for capacity management in computing systems . U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0063043 discloses resource access event may be an administration event where a user is given certain access rights to view/modify a resource . U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0417267 discloses a m ethod identifying a request to access or modify a data resource . U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0144164 discloses c omputational methods and systems to detect anomalous behaving resources and objects of a distributed computing system . U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0153645 discloses a method includes allocating a set of computing resources to a first partition from a plurality of partitions in a computer server, and monitoring a usage duration of the set of computing resources by the first partition . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Chat C Do whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3721 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT {M - Th} 4:30am - 2:30pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Dede Zecher can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-0800 . 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. /Chat C Do/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193