DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
2. Claims 1-15 have been examined and rejected. This is the first Office action on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
4-1. Claim 1 recites managing history information about an execution result of predetermined processing performed by an industrial machine, which can be performed mentally. The claim merely collects information and displays results of the collection.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites a history management device comprising a display unit and a history display control unit. The history management device, display unit, and history display control unit are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional limitation of “control display of the history information on the display unit” and “simultaneously displays the read history information on the display unit” merely presents data, and therefore amounts to post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the claim because it is an activity that must be performed in any method that evaluates data and provides a result. The additional imitation of “reads the history information from both a first storage unit storing the history information and a second storage unit with a characteristic different from that of the first storage unit, the second storage unit storing the history information” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., the mere gathering of information. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any particular technological environment, any improvement to computer functionality, any transformation of an article, or any specific technical application of the calculated output.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the history management device, display unit, and history display control unit amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The limitations related to displaying of information amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., the mere display of information. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation related to reading information amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., the mere gathering of information. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
4-2. Dependent claims 2-4 merely describe characteristics of where the data is read from, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
4-3. As per dependent claim 5, the additional limitations of “for each piece of the history information displayed on the display unit, the history display control unit displays identification information indicating whether the history information belongs to the first storage unit or the second storage unit” merely presents data, and therefore amounts to post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the claim because it is an activity that must be performed in any method that evaluates data and provides a result. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the limitation related to displaying of information amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., the mere display of information. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
4-4. As per dependent claim 6, the additional limitations of “when the history information is transferred from the first storage unit to the second storage unit, the history display control unit changes the identification information displayed for the history information from a display indicating that the history information belongs to the first storage unit to a display indicating that the history information belongs to the second storage unit” merely presents data, and therefore amounts to post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the claim because it is an activity that must be performed in any method that evaluates data and provides a result. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the limitation related to displaying of information amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., the mere display of information. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
4-5. As per dependent claim 7, the additional limitations of “wherein the history display control unit has an automatic update mode of repeatedly executing read-in of the history information from at least the first storage unit and, every time the history information is newly read from the first storage unit, updating a display content of the history information on the display unit by using the newly read history information” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., the mere gathering and display of information. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the limitation related to reading and display of information amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., the mere gathering and display of information. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
4-6. As per dependent claim 8, the additional limitations of “wherein the history display control unit has an update suspension mode of suspending further read-in of the history information from the first storage unit” relates to mere data gathering, which in this case is the cessation of data gathering. This amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the limitation related to suspending reading of data amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
4-7. As per dependent claim 9, the limitation “rearranges the history information read
from the first storage unit and the second storage unit in accordance with a predetermined rule” also corresponds to concepts that can be performed mentally.
The additional limitation “displays the rearranged history information on the display unit” merely presents data, and therefore amounts to post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the claim because it is an activity that must be performed in any method that evaluates data and provides a result. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the limitation related to displaying of information amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., the mere display of information. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
4-8. As per dependent claim 10, the claim merely describes what the predetermined rule may be and therefore, recites the same mental process as claim 9. No further limitations in the dependent claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
4-9. As per dependent claim 11, the additional limitations of “displays… history information meeting a predetermined display condition in the history information read from the first storage unit and the second storage unit” merely presents data, and therefore amounts to post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the claim because it is an activity that must be performed in any method that evaluates data and provides a result. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the limitation related to displaying of information amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., the mere display of information. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
4-10. As per dependent claim 12, the additional limitations of “transfers, to the second storage unit, selected history information out of a plurality of pieces of the history information being simultaneously displayed on the display unit and belonging to the first storage unit” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., the mere storage of information. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the limitation related to transferring information to a storage unit amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., the mere storage of information. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
4-11. Dependent claim 13 merely characterize the history information, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claim also does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
4-12. As per dependent claim 14, the additional limitations of “simultaneously displays, on the display unit, history images included in two or more pieces of selected history information of the history information read from the first storage unit and the second storage unit” merely gathers and presents data, and therefore amounts to post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The gathering and outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the claim because it is an activity that must be performed in any method that evaluates data and provides a result. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the limitation related to displaying of read information amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., the mere gathering and display of information. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
4-13. Claim 15 is directed to the abstract idea of “processing of reading history information about an execution result of processing performed by an industrial machine from both a first storage unit storing the history information and a second storage unit with a characteristic different from that of the first storage unit, the second storage unit storing the history information, rearranging the read history information in accordance with a predetermined rule.” The recited steps of processing and rearranging correspond to concepts that may be performed mentally or in the human mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computer, cause the processor to perform…” The non-transitory computer readable storage medium is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional limitation of “simultaneously displaying the rearranged history information on a display screen” merely presents data, and therefore amounts to post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the claim because it is an activity that must be performed in any method that evaluates data and provides a result. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any particular technological environment, any improvement to computer functionality, any transformation of an article, or any specific technical application of the calculated output.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The limitations related to displaying of information amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., the mere display of information. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita (Pub. No. US 2009/0106284) in view of Spriggs et al (Pub. No. US 2005/0251616).
6-1. Regarding claim 1, Kita teaches the claim comprising: a display unit, by disclosing an image forming apparatus comprising a display unit 15 [paragraph 25; figure 1].
Kita teaches a history display control unit configured to control display of the history information on the display unit, by disclosing a control unit 10 [paragraph 25; figure 1] configured to execute job history data displaying processing to display job history data [paragraph 29].
Kita teaches wherein the history display control unit reads the history information from both a first storage unit storing the history information and a second storage unit with a characteristic different from that of the first storage unit, the second storage unit storing the history information, by disclosing receiving input to display the job history data stored in RAM 12 or hard drive (HDD) 13 on a screen displayed on the display unit 15 [paragraph 43, lines 12-15].
Kita does not expressly teach simultaneously displays the read history information on the display unit. Spriggs discloses that it was well known to simultaneously display data retrieved from a non-volatile memory (e.g., hard drive) and data retrieved from a volatile memory (e.g., RAM) [paragraph 35]. This would allow for better insight by provide a more complete view of the data for evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the job history data from the hard drive and RAM of Kita, simultaneously, as taught by Spriggs. This would allow for better insight by provide a more complete view of the data for evaluation.
6-2. Regarding claim 2, Kita-Spriggs teach all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the first storage unit includes a storage device with a read-write speed greater than that of the second storage unit, by disclosing that the RAM enables writing and reading the job history data faster than the HDD [Kita, paragraph 31].
6-3. Regarding claim 3, Kita-Spriggs teach all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the second storage unit includes a storage device with a storage capacity greater than that of the first storage unit, by disclosing that the HDD is larger in capacity than the RAM [Kita, paragraph 38, 87].
6-4. Regarding claim 4, Kita-Spriggs teach all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the first storage unit includes a volatile memory, and the second storage unit includes a nonvolatile memory, by disclosing RAM which is volatile [Kita, paragraph 43; Spriggs, paragraph 24, line 3, paragraph 29, lines 1-4], and HDD which is nonvolatile [Kita, paragraph 39; Spriggs, paragraph 25, line 6].
6-5. Regarding claim 11, Kita-Spriggs teach all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the history display control unit displays, on the display unit, history information meeting a predetermined display condition in the history information read from the first storage unit and the second storage unit, by disclosing that the data may be retrieved based on date [Kita, paragraph 51; Spriggs, paragraphs 37, 40].
6-6. Regarding claim 13, Kita-Spriggs teach all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the predetermined processing is processing using a visual sensor, by disclosing that the image forming apparatus comprises an image read unit 20 that performs scanning [Kita, paragraph 55].
7. Claims 5, 6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita (Pub. No. US 2009/0106284), in view of Spriggs et al (Pub. No. US 2005/0251616), and further in view of Benhase et al (Pub. No. US 2004/0243616).
7-1. Regarding claim 5, Kita-Spriggs teach all the limitations of claim 1. Kita-Spriggs do not expressly teach wherein for each piece of the history information displayed on the display unit, the history display control unit displays identification information indicating whether the history information belongs to the first storage unit or the second storage unit. Benhase discloses that it was well known to display identification of the source of data [paragraph 37; figure 4]. As shown in [figure 4], certain data is shown belonging to Server A, and certain data is shown belonging to Server B. This would help the user identify the source of the data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display, for each piece of history data in Kita-Spriggs, identification information indicating the source of the data, as taught by Benhase. This would help the user identify the source of the data.
7-2. Regarding claim 6, Kita-Spriggs-Benhase teach all the limitations of claim 5, wherein, when the history information is transferred from the first storage unit to the second storage unit, the history display control unit changes the identification information displayed for the history information from a display indicating that the history information belongs to the first storage unit to a display indicating that the history information belongs to the second storage unit, by disclosing continually monitoring activities of the various storage resources, including whether data is currently being read from, or written to, a resource, which sectors of a disk resource are involved in copying, and what percent of the copying has been completed [Benhase, paragraph 30]. When a copy relationship has been set up for a child storage resource, column 438 indicates a copy status and column 439 indicates a copy progress [paragraph 38, lines 13-20; figure 4]. Column 460 provides information on another storage resource of a copy relationship, including column 462 that indicates a resource identifier and column 468 that indicates whether the resource is a source or target [paragraph 39; figure 4]. Thus, information within the table contains identifiers that indicate both where data is currently residing and where data has been copied to. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to update identification information within the table to indicate where data is currently residing and where data has been copied to, as taught by Benhase. This would provide a better understanding to the user of where data currently resides.
7-3. Regarding claim 9, Kita-Spriggs teach all the limitations of claim 1. Kita-Spriggs do not expressly teach wherein the history display control unit rearranges the history information read from the first storage unit and the second storage unit in accordance with a predetermined rule and displays the rearranged history information on the display unit. Benhase discloses displaying a table containing data from multiple storage units [paragraph 37; figure 4] where the user may customize the display of the interface by invoking sorting and filtering commands [paragraph 42]. This would improve a user’s ability to analyze the data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow sorting of the data, as taught by Benhase. This would improve a user’s ability to analyze the data.
7-4. Regarding claim 10, Kita-Spriggs-Benhase teach all the limitations of claim 9, wherein the predetermined rule includes at least one of the following: (1) rearranging the history information, based on an execution time of the processing; (2) classifying and rearranging the history information, based on status indicating an execution result of the processing; (3) classifying and rearranging the history information, based on information indicating a content of the processing; (4) classifying and rearranging the history information, based on a program name of the processing; and (5) rearranging the history information, based on a run time of a program of the processing, by disclosing that sorting commands may be applied to the table, for instance, by clicking on the header or title of each column [Benhase, paragraph 42]. In the table comprising job history data of Kita-Spriggs-Benhase [Kita, figures 4, 5], this would include Job No., Mode, Number of Sheets, Number of Sets, Result, and Time.
8. Claims 7, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita (Pub. No. US 2009/0106284), in view of Spriggs et al (Pub. No. US 2005/0251616), and further in view of Pan (U.S. Patent No. 5,907,820).
8-1. Regarding claim 7, Kita-Spriggs teach all the limitations of claim 1. Kita-Spriggs do not expressly teach wherein the history display control unit has an automatic update mode of repeatedly executing read-in of the history information from at least the first storage unit and, every time the history information is newly read from the first storage unit, updating a display content of the history information on the display unit by using the newly read history information. Pan discloses a START button to start data acquisition [column 10, lines 19-21]. Once started, data is stored in RAM and displayed in real-time to the user as it is acquired [column 8, line 66 to column 9, line 1; column 9, lines 9-25]. This would allow the user to identify any anomalies quicker. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a mode for automatically retrieving data from RAM and update the interface with the retrieved data, as taught by Pan. This would allow the user to identify any anomalies quicker.
8-2. Regarding claim 8, Kita-Spriggs-Pan teach all the limitations of claim 7, wherein the history display control unit has an update suspension mode of suspending further read-in of the history information from the first storage unit, by disclosing providing a FREEZE DISPLAY button 808 that halts the graph update process [Pan, column 10, lines 21-26]. This would help increase the user’s focus on the presently displayed data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a mode for halting retrieving data from RAM for display, as taught by Pan. This would help increase the user’s focus on the presently displayed data.
8-3. Regarding claim 12, Kita-Spriggs teach all the limitations of claim 1. Kita-Spriggs do not expressly teach wherein the history display control unit transfers, to the second storage unit, selected history information out of a plurality of pieces of the history information being simultaneously displayed on the display unit and belonging to the first storage unit. Pan discloses storing data in RAM and displaying the data in real-time to the user as it is acquired [column 8, line 66 to column 9, line 1; column 9, lines 9-25]. The user may decide to save the data [column 9, lines 4-6]. This would help ensure data is not lost in RAM. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the user to save into the hard drive of Kita-Spriggs, data from RAM, as taught by Pan. This would help ensure data is not lost in RAM.
9. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita (Pub. No. US 2009/0106284), in view of Spriggs et al (Pub. No. US 2005/0251616), and further in view of Cho (Pub. No. US 2020/0167886).
9-1. Regarding claim 14, Kita-Spriggs teach all the limitations of claim 13. Kita-Spriggs do not expressly teach wherein the history display control unit simultaneously displays, on the display unit, history images included in two or more pieces of selected history information of the history information read from the first storage unit and the second storage unit. Cho discloses saving data regarding execution of image processing in a processing data save area 206 [paragraphs 31, 42] which may be RAM [paragraph 30]. An imaging device performs imaging and generates data, including information of a stored image captured when a movement point is saved [paragraph 46]. This would allow a user to better analyze the result of image processing. Since Kita-Spriggs discloses performing image forming [Kita, paragraph 2], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide image data in RAM, as taught by Cho. This would allow a user to better analyze the result of image processing. Since Kita-Spriggs disclose storing job history data in both the RAM and HDD [Kita, paragraphs 60-61] and simultaneously display data retrieved from the HDD and the RAM [Spriggs, paragraph 35], providing image data as the result of image processing to the RAM, in the combination of Kita-Spriggs-Cho, would allow for the simultaneous display of the image data from the RAM and HDD.
7. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita (Pub. No. US 2009/0106284), in view of Benhase et al (Pub. No. US 2004/0243616), and further in view of Spriggs et al (Pub. No. US 2005/0251616),
10-1. Regarding claim 15, Kita teaches the claim of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computer, cause the processor to perform processing of reading history information about an execution result of processing performed by an industrial machine from both a first storage unit storing the history information and a second storage unit with a characteristic different from that of the first storage unit, the second storage unit storing the history information, by disclosing an image forming apparatus that includes nonvolatility memory 11 [paragraph 25] that stores programs to be executed by a control unit 10 [paragraph 30]. Input is received to display job history data stored in RAM 12 or hard drive (HDD) 13 on a screen displayed on the display unit 15 [paragraph 43, lines 12-15].
Kita does not expressly teach rearranging the read history information in accordance with a predetermined rule. Benhase discloses displaying a table containing data from multiple storage units [paragraph 37; figure 4] where the user may customize the display of the interface by invoking sorting and filtering commands [paragraph 42]. This would improve a user’s ability to analyze the data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow sorting of the data, as taught by Benhase. This would improve a user’s ability to analyze the data.
Kita-Benhase do not expressly teach simultaneously displaying the rearranged history information on a display screen. Spriggs discloses that it was well known to simultaneously display data retrieved from a non-volatile memory (e.g., hard drive) and data retrieved from a volatile memory (e.g., RAM) [paragraph 35]. This would allow for better insight by provide a more complete view of the data for evaluation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display the job history data from the hard drive and RAM of Kita-Benhase, simultaneously, as taught by Spriggs. This would allow for better insight by provide a more complete view of the data for evaluation.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8595. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALVIN H TAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights