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 .
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) 1-2, 4-12, 14-25, 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, 21-25, 27 recite(s) methods, claim(s) 11-12, 14-19 recite(s) non-transitory computer-readable media, and claim(s) 20 recite(s) a system. Therefore, claim(s) 1-2, 4-12, 14-25, 27 fall(s) within a statutory category.
Claim 1 recites abstract ideas.
executing a first service health monitoring technique for monitoring a first service based at least in part on a first service health data source, wherein executing the first service health monitoring technique comprises: determining…that a first detected alarm, from the first service health data source, is associated with a first service of the cloud environment corresponds to data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, which are mental processes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses analyzing data to determine relationships ([0229]).
detecting, based on a computer-readable input from at least one component of the cloud environment, a failover condition associated with the first service health monitoring technique for the first service; responsive to detecting the failover condition associated with the first service health monitoring technique for the first service: transitioning from executing the first service health monitoring technique for monitoring the first service to executing a second service health monitoring technique for monitoring the first service corresponds to evaluations, which are mental processes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses evaluating a value in order to make a decision ([0258], [0259]).
computing a first health metric for the first service based at least on the first detected alarm; computing a second health metric for the first service based on service health data from a second service health data source corresponds to mathematical calculations, which are mathematical concepts. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses a sum, product, or weighted sum ([0268]).
Claim 1 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
by a health monitoring utility of a cloud environment; wherein the method is performed by at least one device including a hardware processor amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, which is mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
of a cloud environment amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
generating a second visual representation comprising (a) the second health metric for display on the service health interface and (b) an indication of at least one of: transitioning to executing the second service health monitoring technique, or computing the second health metric for the first service based on service health data from the second service health data source amounts to mere data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(g), and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 2 further recites abstract ideas.
wherein determining that the first detected alarm is associated with the first service of the cloud environment comprises: determining…that the first detected alarm, from the first service health data source, is associated with a first service feature; determining…that the first service feature is associated with the first service. corresponds to data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, which are mental processes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses analyzing data to determine relationships ([0229]).
by the health monitoring utility amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, which is mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not contain additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application and does not contain additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 4 further recites abstract ideas.
determining that a second detected alarm is associated with a second service of the cloud environment; determining that the second service feature is associated with a second service of the cloud environment; determining a ranking of the second service relative to the first service based at least in part on a comparison of the third health metric to at least one of: the first health metric, or the second health metric corresponds to data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, which are mental processes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses analyzing data to determine relationships ([0229], [0300]).
computing a third health metric for the second service based at least on the second detected alarm corresponds to mathematical calculations, which are mathematical concepts. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses a sum, product, or weighted sum ([0268]).
Claim 4 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
generating, for display on the service health interface, a third visual representation comprising the third health metric and the ranking amounts to mere data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 5 refines recited abstract ideas.
wherein the first health metric is computed further based on the user-defined valuation corresponds to mathematical calculations, which are mathematical concepts. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses a weighted sum ([0268]).
Claim 5 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
receiving a user input comprising a user-defined valuation for the first service feature amounts to mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 6 refines recited abstract ideas.
wherein computing the first health metric for the first service comprises: computing a first health score representing an effect of the first detected alarm on at least one of: the first service feature, the first service, or the cloud environment corresponds to mathematical calculations, which are mathematical concepts. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses a weighted sum ([0268]).
The claim does not contain additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application and does not contain additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Claim 7 refines recited abstract ideas.
wherein computing the first health metric for the first service further comprises: assigning the first health metric to the first service based at least in part on the first health score satisfying a first threshold corresponding to the first health metric corresponds to evaluations, which are mental processes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses evaluating a value ([0299]).
The claim does not contain additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application and does not contain additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Claim 8 refines recited abstract ideas.
wherein determining that the first detected alarm is associated with the first service feature comprises: identifying the first detected alarm in the data corpus; identifying the first service feature based on a mapping between the first detected alarm and the first service feature corresponds to data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, which are mental processes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses analyzing data to determine relationships ([0229]).
accessing a data corpus comprising mappings between alarms and service features amounts to mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 9 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
deploying, by a first entity, a first partition to the cloud environment, wherein the first partition comprises the service health interface; transferring operation of the first partition to a second entity; accessing, by one or more users associated with the second entity, the service health interface does not apply or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of deploying, by a first entity, a first partition to the cloud environment, wherein the first partition comprises the service health interface; transferring operation of the first partition to a second entity; accessing, by one or more users associated with the second entity, the service health interface is demonstrated by Non-Patent Literature IBM SmartCloud: Becoming a Cloud Service Provider (Pg. 17: the provider rebrands (with their own brand) the interface and services from another cloud service provider. The customer interactions all have the brand of the aggregating provider. However, the actual management and delivery of the services is provided by the hidden provider).
Claim 10 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
augmenting a status of a provisioning process associated with the first service responsive at least in part to the first health metric amounts to mere data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 21 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
wherein the first service health monitoring technique comprises utilizing alarm data from a telemetry service, and wherein the second service health monitoring technique comprises utilizing messages from a messaging service amounts to mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 22 further recites abstract ideas.
determining that a second detected alarm is associated with a second service feature; determining that the second service feature is associated with the first service corresponds to data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, which are mental processes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses analyzing data to determine relationships ([0229]).
computing the first health metric for the first service further based on the second detected alarm associated with the second service feature corresponds to mathematical calculations, which are mathematical concepts. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses a sum, product, or weighted sum ([0268]).
The claim does not contain additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application and does not contain additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Claim 23 further recites abstract ideas.
determining that a second detected alarm is associated with a second service feature; determining that the second service feature is associated with a second service of the cloud environment; determining a ranking of the second service relative to the first service based at least in part on a comparison of the third health metric to at least one of: the first health metric, or the second health metric corresponds to data analysis steps recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, which are mental processes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses analyzing data to determine relationships ([0229], [0300]).
computing a third health metric for the second service based at least on the second detected alarm that is associated with the second service feature corresponds to mathematical calculations, which are mathematical concepts. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses a sum, product, or weighted sum ([0268]).
Claim 23 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
generating, for display on the service health interface, a third visual representation comprising the third health metric and the ranking amounts to mere data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 24 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
wherein transitioning from executing the first service health monitoring technique to executing the second service health monitoring technique is imperceptible on the service health interface amounts to mere data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 25 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
wherein the second visual representation further comprises an indication of at least one of: the second service health monitoring technique, or the second service health data source utilized to compute the second health metric amounts to mere data output, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 27 refines recited abstract ideas.
wherein detecting the failover condition corresponds to a degraded state of at least a portion of the cloud environment, the degraded state comprising at least one of: a hardware failure, a software bug, a networking issue, a data corruption, an incomplete or missing alarm, a delayed alarm, a false alarm, an inconsistent alarm behavior, a reduced accuracy of alarm data, or a time duration since a last state change for an alarm parameter meeting a threshold corresponds to evaluations, which are mental processes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in light of the specification encompasses evaluating a value ([0258], [0259]).
The claim does not contain additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application and does not contain additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
Claim(s) 11-12, 14-19, the non-transitory computer-readable media(s) that implement(s) the method(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, respectively, is/are rejected on the same grounds as claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, respectively.
Claim 11 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, which is mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim(s) 20, the system(s) that implement(s) the method(s) of claim(s) 1, respectively, is/are rejected on the same grounds as claim(s) 1, respectively.
Claim 20 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
A system comprising: at least one device including a hardware processor; the system being configured to perform operations comprising amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas on a computer, which is mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
For at least the reasons provided above, claim(s) 1-2, 4-12, 14-25, 27 are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-25, 27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 26 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record, either alone or when combined, teaches or suggests responsive to detecting the failover condition associated with the first service health monitoring technique for the first service: transitioning from executing the first service health monitoring technique for monitoring the first service to executing a second service health monitoring technique for monitoring the first service, wherein executing the second service health monitoring technique comprises: computing a second health metric for the first service based on service health data from a second service health data source; generating a second visual representation comprising the second health metric for display on the service health interface as recited in claim(s) 1, 11, and 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pg. 10, with respect to the objection of claim 26 and the 101 rejection of claim have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 10, Applicant argues:
“The Office has indicated that claim 26 recites allowable subject matter. Subject matter from claim 26 is now incorporated into claim 1, which is allowable for at least the reasons set forth herein.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. “an indication [on the service health interface]” is not the same as “transmitting a notification accessible by a user”. Therefore, claim 1 has not incorporated all the allowable subject matter from claim 26.
Applicant's arguments, see pg. 10-16, with respect to the 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4-12, 14-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 10-11, Applicant argues:
“determining, by a health monitoring utility of a cloud environment, that a first detected
alarm, from a first service health data source, is associated with a first service of the cloud environment.
Example 37 explains that example claim 2 does not cover performance in the mind because, for example, the "determining step" in example claim 2 requires "action by a processor that cannot be practically applied in the mind ... at least because it requires a processor accessing computer memory." Likewise, the above-referenced element of claim 1 requires a processor accessing computer memory at least because the determining operations are performed by a health monitoring utility of a cloud environment.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, “determining…that a first detected alarm, from a first service health data source, is associated with a first service of the cloud environment” corresponds to a mental process. While “by a health monitoring utility of a cloud environment” does require a processor accessing computer memory, “determining…that a first detected alarm, from a first service health data source, is associated with a first service of the cloud environment” only requires evaluating a value and does not require a processor accessing computer memory. The limitation as a whole amounts to performing a mental process in a computer environment. Performing a mental process in a computer environment is still a mental process. See 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
On pg. 11-12, Applicant argues:
“In Thales, determining that the claims to a particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform did not merely recite "the abstract idea of using 'mathematical equations for determining the relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame'." The Federal Circuit found that the mathematical equations utilized in the claim "serve only to tabulate the position and orientation information" for a particular arrangement of sensors. Id. at 1348. Accordingly, as explained in Thales, the fact that "a mathematical equation is required to complete the claimed method and system does not doom the claims to abstraction." Id. at 1349.
Similarly, computing a first health metric for the first service based at least on the first detected alarm, does not merely recite the abstract idea of using mathematical calculations to compute health metrics. The first health metric in claim 1 serves to provide a visual representation of the of the service health of the first service based on the first detected alarm determined by the health monitoring utility. Thus, similar to the calculation of position and orientation of an object in Thales, the above-reference element of claim 1 does not fall within the mathematical concept grouping.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. “determining the relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame” is not analogous to “computing a first health metric for the first service based at least on the first detected alarm”, and the applicant has not demonstrated how they are analogous. As indicated in the specification, [0258], [0259], “computing a first health metric for the first service based at least on the first detected alarm” is merely a sum, product, or weighted sum such as 3x1=3, which amounts to a mathematical calculation.
On pg. 12-13, Applicant argues:
“Moreover, the following elements recited in claim 1 are not directed to any of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP §2106.04(a):
executing a first service health monitoring technique for monitoring a first service based at least in part on a first service health data source;
detecting, based on a computer-readable input from at least one component of the cloud environment, a failover condition associated with the first service health monitoring technique for the first service;
responsive to detecting the failover condition associated with the first service health monitoring technique for the first service:
transitioning from executing the first service health monitoring technique for monitoring the first service to executing a second service health monitoring technique for monitoring the first service, wherein executing the second service health monitoring technique comprises:
computing a second health metric for the first service based on service health data from a second service health data source
generating a second visual representation comprising (a) the second health metric for display on the service health interface and (b) an indication of at least one of: transitioning to executing the second service health monitoring technique, or computing the second health metric for the first service based on service health data from the second service health data source”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The elements have been addressed above in the rejection.
On pg. 13-14, Applicant argues:
“Claim 1 integrates the contended judicial exception into a practical application at least because claim 1 improves service health monitoring technology for cloud computing environments. As one example, service health monitoring technology is improved because, in response to detecting failover condition associated with first service health data source, the method of claim 1 transitions from executing the first service health monitoring technique for monitoring the first service to executing a second service health monitoring technique for monitoring the first service. Thus, in the event of the failover condition associated with the first service health monitoring technique for the first service, the service health can be monitored based on the second service health monitoring technique.
Consistent with MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1), claim 1 meaningfully limits the use of the contended judicial exceptions by executing a first service health monitoring technique for monitoring a first service based at least in part on a first service health data source, and responsive to detecting the failover condition associated with the first service health monitoring technique for the first service, transitioning from executing the first service health monitoring technique for monitoring the first service to executing a second service health monitoring technique for monitoring the first service. Additionally, claim 1 meaningfully limits use of the contended judicial exception at least because the first service health monitoring technique includes computing a first health metric for the first service based at least on the first detected alarm, and the second service health monitoring technique includes computing a second health metric for the first service based on service health data from a second service health data source. Moreover, claim 1 meaningfully limits use of the contended judicial exception at least because the first service health monitoring technique further includes generating a first visual representation comprising the first health metric for display on a service health interface, and the second service health monitoring technique further includes generating a second visual representation comprising the second health metric for display on the service health interface.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not demonstrated how the claim improves service health monitoring technology for cloud computing environments and is merely stating the claim limitations provide the improvement.
On pg. 14-15, Applicant argues:
“Moreover, as a whole, claim 1 provides a "technological solution to a technological problem," which the courts have found amounts to more than merely applying the judicial exception. See e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300-01 (Fed. Cir. 2016). It is a technological problem that utilizing detected alarms to determine the service health of a service can be susceptible to failover conditions. These failover conditions include incomplete or missing alarms, delayed alarms, false alarms, inconsistent alarm behavior, or reduced accuracy of alarm data. See [0239]. Claim 1 provides a technological solution to this technological problem by transitioning from executing the first service health monitoring technique for monitoring the first service to executing the second service health monitoring technique for monitoring the first service responsive to detecting the failover condition associated with the first service health monitoring technique for the first service.
The Office contends that generating a visual representation for display on a service health interface allegedly is insignificant extra-solution activity amounting to merely "data output." Applicant respectfully disagrees. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as "activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim." MPEP § 2106.05(g). However, generating the first visual representation that includes the first health metric for display on the service health interface is part of executing a first service health monitoring technique for monitoring a first service based at least in part on a first service health data source. Consequently, generating the first visual representation is part of the primary method and not merely nominal or tangential data output. Additionally, transitioning from executing the first service health monitoring technique to executing the second service health monitoring technique responsive to detecting the failover condition is part of the primary method and not merely nominal or tangential data output. Rather, as discussed above, these claim elements represent a technological solution to a technological, and therefore to not amount to insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Moreover, the analysis under Step 2B "is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept." MPEP§ 2106.05(1) (citing Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). Claim 1 sets forth an inventive concept at least in view of transitioning from executing the first service health monitoring technique to executing the second service health monitoring technique responsive to detecting the failover condition is part of the primary method and not merely nominal or tangential data output.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. “generating the first visual representation” merely outputs the result of abstract ideas. “transitioning from executing the first service health monitoring technique to executing the second service health monitoring technique responsive to detecting the failover condition” amounts to merely modifying the output based on results of abstract ideas. Merely modifying output does not provide a technological solution to failover conditions of detected alarms. Therefore, the claim does not represent a technological solution to a technological problem or set forth an inventive concept.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5721. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00AM-3:00PM PT.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571)272-3655. 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.
/A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2113
/MARC DUNCAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113