DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Contingent Limitations
Claim 24 comprises contingent limitation recited in phrases “when the link utilization level falls below a threshold”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. The condition followed the phrase “when” may not be met, hence the corresponding steps may not be required to be conducted. Therefore, these limitations have no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04 (II) for details.
Applicant’s intention is deemed to make the limitations to have patentable weight in the claim, therefore for continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as “[[when]] in response to the link utilization level [[falls]] falling below a threshold”.
Claim Objections
In claim 24, the limitation “in response to receiving a trigger for at least one of retraining and recalibrating the IO link; monitoring a link utilization level” should be amended to “in response to receiving a trigger for at least one of retraining and recalibrating the IO link[[;]], monitoring a link utilization level”, to correct the grammatical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 21 and 28 recite a limitation "may be approaching" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether and under what condition the phrase following the word “may” are part of the claimed invention. For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as "is approaching". Claims 22-30 are also rejected since they have inherited the same deficiency from claim 21.
Claim 30 recites a limitation “the PCI interface” which lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as “the PCIe interface”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20170093521 A1, hereinafter as “Wang”).
Regarding claim 21, Wang teaches:
A method for extending a dynamic temperature range of a processor (processor of component 102 in FIG. 1) including an input-output (IO) interface (transceivers 14, 116, 134, 136, 154 and 156 in FIG. 1) coupled to a device (component 106 in FIG. 1) via an IO link (channels 115, 125, 135, 145, 155 and 165 in FIG. 1), comprising:
monitoring one or more of temperature, environmental, and workload conditions to determine or predict that the IO link is approaching a marginal operating condition (according to Applicant’s disclosure in [0078] of the specification, the recited limitation is construed, in its broadest reasonable interpretation, as monitoring temperature. Wang teaches in [0015] to monitor temperature and determine the IO link is changing to approach a marginal operating temperature); and
in response to determining or predicting that the IO link is approaching the marginal operating condition, triggering at least one of retraining and recalibrating of the IO link without resetting the IO link ([0015]: the link 100 retraining is initiated when the marginal operating temperature is approached).
Wang teaches specifically (underlines are added by Examiner for emphasis):
PNG
media_image1.png
516
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0015] Channel management modules 104 and 108 direct the training of link 100. During the training, encoders 113, 123, 133, 143, 153, and 163 encode predefined bit sequences for transmission by respective transmitters 114, 124, 134, 144, 154, and 164. The training of link 100 is initiated at a lowest transfer rate. The associated receivers 116, 126, 136, 146, 156, and 166 receive the bit sequences, as modified by the effects of respective channels 115, 125, 135, 145, 155, and 165, any bit errors are detected by respective decoder/BER modules 117, 127, 137, 147, 157, and 167, and the associated BER is there determined for each path. If the BER for each path is within an acceptable limit, then the training of link 100 is redone at a next higher transfer rate. Training continues at higher transfer rates until the BER fails to be within the acceptable limit, and the transfer speed is set to the next lower transfer rate. Note that training of link 100 does not only occur at system initialization, but can be performed at other times and in other circumstances, as needed or desired. For example, when the temperature of one or both of components 102 and 106 changes, channel management modules 104 and 108 can initiate a retraining of link 100. The skilled artisan will recognize that other circumstances can result in a link retraining sequence, and that other activities, such as resetting of compensations settings can be performed during a link retraining, in order to maximize the potential for the successful training of the link at the highest possible transfer rate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Anderson (US 20160377650 A1, hereinafter as “Anderson”).
Regarding claim 22, Wang teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but does not teach obtaining a processor temperature TT at which the input-output (IO) link was trained; monitoring a current temperature Tc of the processor; and determining a difference between TT and Tc is greater than a current dynamic temperature range threshold DTRTH.
However, Anderson teaches in an analogous art:
obtaining a device temperature TT at which the input-output (IO) link was trained; monitoring a current temperature Tc of the device; and determining a difference between TT and Tc is greater than a current dynamic temperature range threshold ([0043]: “Over time certain conditions may cause the accelerometer 110 error parameters to change, causing previously measured calibration parameters to become less accurate. For example, mechanical stresses on a device package of the accelerometer 110, aging of the accelerometer 110, and temperature changes, all may cause the accelerometer 110 calibration to degrade. The calibration module 135 monitors one or more recalibration conditions that if met, cause the calibration module 135 to recalibrate the accelerometer 110. In this manner, the calibration module 135 corrects for changes that would otherwise cause the accelerometer 110 to fall out of calibration over time. For example, the calibration module 135 monitors the output of the temperature sensor, and if the temperature deviates more than a threshold value from a temperature at which the previous calibration as performed (i.e., meets a recalibration condition), the calibration module 135 re-calibrates the accelerometer 110”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang based on the teaching of Anderson, to make the method wherein triggering the at least one of retraining and recalibration of the IO link comprises obtaining a processor temperature TT at which the input-output (IO) link was trained; monitoring a current temperature Tc of the processor; and determining a difference between TT and Tc is greater than a current dynamic temperature range threshold DTRTH. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since “the calibration parameters can be updated in real-time” to achieve “long term accuracy”, as Anderson teaches in [0043].
Regarding claim 23, Wang-Anderson teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Anderson further teaches:
setting Tr to Tc ([0081]: “once the calibrated values of the calibration parameters are determined, the monitoring module 360 may associate a calibration temperature with the set of calibration values. The calibration temperature is the temperature at which the calibrated values were determined as is determined using temperature measurements received from the temperature sensor 125. The calibration temperature may be, e.g., an average temperature of the accelerometer 110 while the calibrated values were determined, or some temperature (e.g., highest, lowest, etc.) of the accelerometer 110 that occurred while the calibrated values were determined”);
setting the current value of DTRTH to a prior value ([0081]: prior/same temperature threshold) or new value; and
determining a difference between TT and Tc is greater than the current value of DTRTH; and triggering a second at least one of retraining and recalibration of the IO link ([0081]: “The monitoring module 360 monitors subsequent temperature measurements from the temperature sensor 125, and if a temperature measurement deviates by more than a temperature threshold (e.g., ±5 degrees C.), causes the electronic device 100 to re-calibrate the accelerometer 110”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Wang based on the teaching of Anderson, to make the method to further comprise setting Tr to Tc; setting the current value of DTRTH to a prior value or new value; and determining a difference between TT and Tc is greater than the current value of DTRTH; and triggering a second at least one of retraining and recalibration of the IO link. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since “the calibration parameters can be updated in real-time” to achieve “long term accuracy”, as Anderson teaches in [0043].
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Witt (US 8705607 B1, hereinafter as “Witt”).
Regarding claim 24, Wang teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but does not teach in response to receiving a trigger for at least one of retraining and recalibrating the IO link, monitoring a link utilization level; and in response to the link utilization level falling below a threshold, initiating at least one of retraining and recalibrating the IO link.
However, Witt teaches in an analogous art:
monitoring a link utilization level ([Claim 15]); and
in response to the link utilization level falling below a threshold, initiating at least one of retraining and recalibrating the IO link ([Claim 15]: “the receiver comprising an adaptive equalizer to provide an adaptive equalization training to the receiver in response to detecting an idle period on the link after the link has been initialized”. This teaches when link utilization level falls to zero in an idle period, initiate another training for the link).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang based on the teaching of Witt, to make the method to further comprise in response to receiving a trigger for at least one of retraining and recalibrating the IO link, monitoring a link utilization level; and in response to the link utilization level falling below a threshold, initiating at least one of retraining and recalibrating the IO link. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help re-optimize signal quality during “a thermal shift”, as Witt teaches in [Col. 1 Lines 60-66].
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Nakamura (US 20070253132 A1, hereinafter as “Nakamura”).
Regarding claim 25, Wang teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but does not teach projecting an anticipated increase in a temperature of the processor in consideration of at least one of a coolant failure and one or more thermal inputs; and in response thereto, triggering the at least one of retraining and recalibrating the IO link.
However, Nakamura teaches in an analogous art:
projecting an anticipated increase in a temperature of device in consideration of at least one of a coolant failure and one or more thermal inputs (FIG.s 1 and 2 and [0027]: “The rising/increasing temperature estimation device 61 estimates a temperature increase of the wire 7 at a predetermined sampling rate (e.g. 5 msec). The estimation is based on both a value of the current flowing to the load 4, as measured by the ammeter 5 when the electrical switch is turned ON, and predetermined thermal properties (a thermal resistivity R and a thermal capacity C, as described below) of a conductor including the wire 7 and a contact conductor”); and
in response thereto, triggering a shutoff ([0031]: “The temperature determination device 65 compares the present temperature Tnow estimated by the present temperature estimation device 64 with a predetermined maximum allowable temperature (a predetermined threshold temperature), Tth. If the temperature determination device 65 determines that Tnow is higher than Tth, the device 65 outputs a circuit-shutoff signal to the switch control device 66”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang based on the teaching of Nakamura, to make the method wherein triggering the at least one of retraining and recalibration of the IO link comprises projecting an anticipated increase in a temperature of the processor in consideration of at least one of a coolant failure and one or more thermal inputs; and in response thereto, triggering the at least one of retraining and recalibrating the IO link. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help needed protection, as Nakamura teaches in [0002].
Regarding claim 26, Wang teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but does not teach monitoring one or more workload conditions; determining a workload condition will cause the processor temperature to exceed a temperature threshold, and in response thereto, triggering the at least one of retraining and recalibrating the IO link..
However, Nakamura teaches in an analogous art:
monitoring one or more workload conditions;
determining a workload condition will cause device temperature to exceed a temperature threshold (FIG.s 1 and 2 and [0027]: “The rising/increasing temperature estimation device 61 estimates a temperature increase of the wire 7 at a predetermined sampling rate (e.g. 5 msec). The estimation is based on both a value of the current flowing to the load 4, as measured by the ammeter 5 when the electrical switch is turned ON …”), and
in response thereto, triggering a shutoff ([0031]: “The temperature determination device 65 compares the present temperature Tnow estimated by the present temperature estimation device 64 with a predetermined maximum allowable temperature (a predetermined threshold temperature), Tth. If the temperature determination device 65 determines that Tnow is higher than Tth, the device 65 outputs a circuit-shutoff signal to the switch control device 66”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang based on the teaching of Nakamura, to make the method wherein triggering the at least one of retraining and recalibration of the IO link comprises monitoring one or more workload conditions; determining a workload condition will cause the processor temperature to exceed a temperature threshold, and in response thereto, triggering the at least one of retraining and recalibrating the IO link. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help needed protection, as Nakamura teaches in [0002].
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Eng (US 20030035442 A1, hereinafter as “Eng”).
Regarding claim 27, Wang teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Wang further teaches:
the method is implemented on a platform including the processor and a plurality of devices coupled to the processor via respective IO links, each IO link coupled to a respective pair of IO interfaces on the device and the processor, each of the plurality of devices having a respective port (FIG. 3 and [0025]: “BIOS/EFI module 340, disk controller 350, and I/O interface 370 are connected to chipset 310 via an I/O channel 312. An example of I/O channel 312 includes a Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) interface, a PCI-Extended (PCI-X) interface, a high-speed PCI-Express (PCIe) interface, another industry standard or proprietary communication interface, or a combination thereof. Chipset 310 can also include one or more other I/O interfaces, including an Industry Standard Architecture (ISA) interface, a Small Computer Serial Interface (SCSI) interface, an Inter-Integrated Circuit (I.sup.2C) interface, a System Packet Interface (SPI), a Universal Serial Bus (USB), another interface, or a combination thereof”).
Wang teaches all the limitations except implementing individual adaptive link training profiles for individual IO interfaces and ports based on link capability and dynamic temperature range requirements.
However, Eng teaches in an analogous art that different communication channels have different profiles ([0103]: “In block 1124, fsCMTS will do fine calibration on each of the upstream channels in the fsCM domain by sending a periodic unicast fine calibration grant to the fsCM 106 for each upstream channel. In block 1124 the fine-calibration process is complete after receiving fine CRSP 700 from fsCMTS and after fsCM 106 adjusts its upstream channel parameters ranging offset, frequency, power level, and pre-equalizer coefficients. These parameters will be saved in the fsCM 106 upstream channel profiles and they will be used to configure the channel before burst transmission”)
Since each channel has different capability and since Wang teaches to train a channel based on temperature range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang based on the teaching of Eng, to make the method to further comprise implementing individual adaptive link training profiles for individual IO interfaces and ports based on link capability and dynamic temperature range requirements. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to better train each of multiple links.
Claims 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Puthillathe (US 20160364243 A1, hereinafter as “Puthillathe”).
Regarding claim 28, Wang teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but does not teach implementing a dynamic temperature range (DTR) control manager in the management controller; and employing the DTR control manager to: monitor one or more of temperature, environmental and workload conditions to determine that the IO link may be is approaching a marginal operating condition; and trigger the at least one of retraining and recalibrating of the IO link without resetting the IO link.
However, Puthillathe teaches in an analogous art a BMC controller (FIG. 1: BMC controller 128 is coupled to host 116 wherein host 116 couples to PCI device 120 via interface 122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang based on the teaching of Puthillathe, to make the method, wherein the method is implemented on a platform including the processor coupled to a management controller, to further comprise implementing a dynamic temperature range (DTR) control manager in the management controller; and employing the DTR control manager to monitor one or more of temperature, environmental and workload conditions to determine that the IO link may be is approaching a marginal operating condition; and trigger the at least one of retraining and recalibrating of the IO link without resetting the IO link. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to facilitate the configuration, as Puthillathe suggests in [0004].
Regarding claim 30, Wang teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Wang further teaches:
the IO interface is a Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) interface and the device is a PCIe device ([0010]: “An example of link 100 includes a PCI-Express (PCIe) link …”).
Wang teaches all the limitations except receiving, at the processor, a link retraining request comprising ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) Source Language (ASL); and parsing the ASL and setting a register value in the PCIe interface to cause the PCIe interface to initiate at least one of link retraining and recalibration.
However, Puthillathe teaches in an analogous art to use ACPI source language (ASL) to provide configuration (FIG.s 1 and 2 and [0035]: “there is illustrated an example of services architecture 200 that may be implemented by IHS 100 in order to provide OOB real-time inventory and configuration of OEM devices using ACPI and UEFI services”).
Since PCIe link retraining is initiated by a command setting a register, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang based on the teaching of Puthillathe, to make the method to further comprise receiving, at the processor, a link retraining request comprising ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) Source Language (ASL); and parsing the ASL and setting a register value in the PCIe interface to cause the PCIe interface to initiate at least one of link retraining and recalibration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to facilitate the configuration, as Puthillathe suggests in [0004].
Claims 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Anderson, and in further view of Puthillathe.
Claim 31 recites limitations similar to those of claim 22 (which are taught by Wang-Anderson as recited in the rejection of claims 21 and 22) with additional limitations a management controller, coupled to the second IO interface via a host to management controller interface and configured to send a link retraining request to the host processor via the host to management controller interface to trigger at least one of retraining and recalibrating the first IO link.
Puthillathe teaches in an analogous art:
a management controller (BMC controller 128 in FIG. 1), coupled to the second IO interface via a host to management controller interface (BMC controller 128 couples to the host 116 via interface 130, wherein host 116 also couples to PCI device 120 via IO link 122 as shown in FIG. 1) and configured to:
send a request to the host processor via the host to management controller interface (FIG. 1 and [0027]: “BMC controller 128 may include non-volatile memory having program instructions stored thereon that are usable by CPU(s) 102 to enable remote management of IHS 100. For example, BMC controller 128 may enable a user to discover, configure, and manage BMC controller 128, setup configuration options, resolve and administer hardware or software problems, etc. Additionally or alternatively, BMC controller 128 may include one or more firmware volumes, each volume having one or more firmware files used by the BIOS/UEFI's interface to initialize and test components of IHS 100”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang-Anderson based on the teaching of Puthillathe, to make the computing platform to further comprise a management controller, coupled to the second IO interface via a host to management controller interface and configured to send a link retraining request to the host processor via the host to management controller interface to trigger at least one of retraining and recalibrating the first IO link. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to “enable management” of the system, as Puthillathe teaches in [0027].
Claim 32 recites additional limitations similar to those in claim 23. Therefore, claim 32 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 23.
Claim 33 recites additional limitations similar to those in claim 30. Therefore, claim 33 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 30.
Regarding claim 36, Wang-Anderson-Puthillathe teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Wang further teaches:
the processor is one of a Graphic Processor Unit (GPU), General Purpose GPUs (GP-GPU), Tensor Processing Unit (TPU), Data Processor Unit (DPU), Artificial Intelligence (Al) processor, AI inference unit, or Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) ([0030]).
Claim 37 recites a management controller similar to the computing platform in claim 31 with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claim 37 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 31.
Claim 38 recites additional limitations similar to those in claim 32. Therefore, claim 38 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 32.
Claim 39 recites additional limitations similar to those in claim 33. Therefore, claim 39 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 33.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Anderson and Puthillathe, and in further view of Witt.
Regarding claim 35, Wang-Anderson-Puthillathe teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but do not teach in response to receiving the link retraining request, monitoring a link utilization level; and when the link utilization level falls below a threshold, initiate at least one of retraining and recalibrating the first IO link.
However, Witt teaches in an analogous art:
monitoring a link utilization level ([Claim 15]); and
when the link utilization level falling below a threshold, initiating at least one of retraining and recalibrating the IO link ([Claim 15]: “the receiver comprising an adaptive equalizer to provide an adaptive equalization training to the receiver in response to detecting an idle period on the link after the link has been initialized”. This teaches when link utilization level falls to zero in an idle period, initiate another training for the link).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang-Anderson-Puthillathe based on the teaching of Witt, to make the computing platform wherein the processor is further configured to in response to receiving the link retraining request, monitor a link utilization level; and when the link utilization level falls below a threshold, initiate at least one of retraining and recalibrating the first IO link. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification since it can help re-optimize signal quality during “a thermal shift”, as Witt teaches in [Col. 1 Lines 60-66].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29, 34 and 40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7192. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 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, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES CAI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115