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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/5/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 10, 13, 16 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes-Mitra et al. US2023/0198765 in view of YugebyteDB “Row-level geo-partitioning” 12/6/2022 https://web.archive.org/web/20221206014605/https://docs.yugabyte.com/preview/explore/multi-region-deployments/row-level-geo-partitioning/ hereinafter referenced as YugabyteDB in view of Horovitz et al. US2018/0204145 in view of Hines US2018/0276242
Regarding claim 1, Holmes-Mitra teaches: receiving, by a computer system, a set of query data and includes a request for geospatial data for one or more regions corresponding to the set of query data; (Holmes-Mitra see paragraph 0094 0098 0137 sets of queries partitioned by geographic location for computing entities to process query associated with their particular geographic location, query data made available by computing entities and evaluating query by query data against GPS data checking whether location falls within geo-fence)
partitioning, by the computer system based on geographic locations corresponding to the set of query data, the set of query data into subsets of query data; (Holmes-Mitra see paragraph 0094 sets of queries partitioned by geographic location)
assigning, by the computer system, the subsets of query data to a plurality of query engines, wherein each of the plurality of query engines is assigned to a different geographic partition of a plurality of geographic partitions, wherein the geographic locations of the subsets of query data are located in the plurality of geographic partitions, (Holmes-Mitra see paragraph 0094 sets of queries partitioned by geographic location for computing entities to process query associated with their particular geographic location)
executing, by the computer system, the plurality of query engines in parallel to retrieve geographic region data for geographic locations falling within the geographic partitions to which the plurality of query engines are assigned, wherein the retrieving is performed by a given query engine for a corresponding subset of query data by: (Holmes-Mitra see fig 1b see paragraph 0053 0054 0057 0094 0098 0137 sets of queries partitioned by geographic location for computing entities to process query associated with their particular geographic location, query data made available by computing entities and evaluating query by query data against GPS data checking whether location falls within geo-fence. Query to be performed on each of the address computing entities asking the computing entities if they are within the area which reads on in parallel. Figure 1b also shows each commuting entity in parallel)
geographic region data retrieved by the plurality of query engines for the subsets of query data from of the plurality of query engines (Holmes-Mitra see paragraph 0094 0098 0137 sets of queries partitioned by geographic location for computing entities to process query associated with their particular geographic location, query data made available by computing entities and evaluating query by query data against GPS data checking whether location falls within geo-fence)
Holmes-Mitra does not distinctly disclose: a batch query, wherein the batch query specifies a set of query
specified in the batch query, wherein the partitioning includes identifying, based on mappings between respective geographic cells and geographic regions, a geographic region within a corresponding geographic cell within which geographic coordinates included in the set of query data are located
and wherein a given geographic partition encompasses a plurality of geographic cells each of which encompass a plurality of geographic regions; and
identifying a geographic cell of the plurality of geographic cells within which the subset of geographic query data located
identifying, based on the mappings between the identified geographic cells and geographic regions, a geographic region encompassed by the identified geographic cell and within which the subset of query data is located
accessing, based on the identified geographic region, an in-memory index of the given query engine that stores geographic region data for the geographic partition assigned to the given query engine and within which the corresponding subset of query data is located
storing, by the computer system data the in-memory indexes in an aggregated data store
However, YugabyteDB teaches: accessing an in-memory index of the given query engine that stores geographic region data for the geographic partition assigned to the given query engine and within which the corresponding subset of query data is located (YugebyteDB see pages 2, 3, 5, 6, 11 querying for data on a geographic partition based on geographical requirement of data such as reserve bank of India or the United States such that indexes are created and associated with each partition)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include geo-partitioning taught by YugabyteDB for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Holmes-Mitra does not distinctly disclose: a batch query, wherein the batch query specifies a set of query
specified in the batch query, wherein the partitioning includes identifying, based on mappings between respective geographic cells and geographic regions, a geographic region within a corresponding geographic cell within which geographic coordinates included in the set of query data are located
and wherein a given geographic partition encompasses a plurality of geographic cells each of which encompass a plurality of geographic regions; and
identifying a geographic cell of the plurality of geographic cells within which the subset of geographic query data located
identifying, based on the mappings between the identified geographic cells and geographic regions, a geographic region encompassed by the identified geographic cell and within which the subset of query data is located
storing, by the computer system data the in-memory indexes in an aggregated data store
Hines teaches: wherein the partitioning includes identifying, based on mappings between respective geographic cells and geographic regions, a geographic region within a corresponding geographic cell within which geographic coordinates included in the set of query data are located (Hines see figure 2 see paragraph 0004 0005 0028 0040 0066 user requests for map data in a specified geographic region and determine using tree structure representing geographic region a cell representing for example United States such that geographic region is bound by latitude and longitude coordinates)
and wherein a given geographic partition encompasses a plurality of geographic cells each of which encompass a plurality of geographic regions; and (Hines see figure 2 see paragraph 0004 0005 0028 node in tree structure representing geographic area defined by fragments and cells representing portions of geographic area for example (0,1) as the cell ID for northeast portion of the United States)
identifying a geographic cell of the plurality of geographic cells within which the subset of geographic query data located (Hines see paragraph 0040 0066 determine geographic cell corresponding to request for data)
identifying, based on the mappings between the identified geographic cells and geographic regions, a geographic region encompassed by the identified geographic cell and within which the subset of query data is located (Hines see figure 2 see paragraph 0004 0005 0028 0040 0066 user requests for map data in a specified geographic region and determine using tree structure representing geographic region a cell)
in-memory indexes (Hines see figure 2 see paragraph 0004 0005 0018 0027 0028 generating an index storing map feature fragments and cells representing geographic areas)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include geospatial indexing as taught by Hines for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Holmes-Mitra does not distinctly disclose: a batch query, wherein the batch query specifies a set of query
specified in the batch query
storing, by the computer system data in an aggregated data store
However, Horovitz teaches: a batch query, wherein the batch query specifies a set of query
specified in the batch query (Horovitz see paragraph 0134 launch queries in batch as a set of queries)
storing, by the computer system data in an aggregated data store (Horovitz see paragraph 0148 0162 store results of queries in cache)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include batch queries as taught by Horovitz for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Regarding claim 6, Holmes-Mitra as modified further teaches: transmitting a file path corresponding to the geographic region data stored in the aggregated data store (YugebyteDB see pages 2, 3, 5, 6, 11 querying for data on a geographic partition based on geographical requirement of data such as reserve bank of India or the United States such that indexes are created and associated with each partition)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include geo-partitioning taught by YugabyteDB for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
by the computer system to a computing device from which the batch query was received for the batch query (Horovitz see paragraph 0031-0033 0044 0134 launch queries in batch as a set of queries such that batches are transmitted in series by user request)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include batch queries as taught by Horovitz for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Regarding claim 8, Holmes-Mitra as modified further teaches: wherein the geographic region data includes one or more types of the following types of geographic variables: index number, creation timestamp, modification timestamp, region identifier, boundary type, and boundary coordinates. (YugebyteDB see pages 2, 3, 5, 6, 11 geo-partition identified as India, United States, EU)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include geo-partitioning taught by YugabyteDB for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Regarding claim 10, see rejection of claim 1
Regarding claim 13, see rejection of claim 6
Regarding claim 16, see rejection of claim 1
Claim(s) 2, 18 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes-Mitra et al. US2023/0198765 in view of YugebyteDB “Row-level geo-partitioning” 12/6/2022 https://web.archive.org/web/20221206014605/https://docs.yugabyte.com/preview/explore/multi-region-deployments/row-level-geo-partitioning/ hereinafter referenced as YugabyteDB in view of Horovitz et al. US2018/0204145 in view of Hines US2018/0276242 in view of Li et al. US2016/0147751
Regarding claim 2, Holmes-Mitra as modified teaches: wherein prior to receiving the query, the computer system builds in-memory indexes for each of the plurality of query engines (YugebyteDB see pages 2, 3, 5, 6, 11 indexes are created and associated with each partition then query for geo-partition)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include geo-partitioning taught by YugabyteDB for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Batch queries (Horovitz see paragraph 0134 launch queries in batch as a set of queries)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include batch queries as taught by Horovitz for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Holmes-Mitra does not teach: builds indexes based on previously received queries
However, Li teaches: builds indexes based on previously received queries (Li see paragraph 0095 build index based on query condition)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include index building based on query as taught by Li for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Regarding claim 18, see rejection of claim 2
Claim(s) 3, 4, 19 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes-Mitra et al. US2023/0198765 in view of YugebyteDB “Row-level geo-partitioning” 12/6/2022 https://web.archive.org/web/20221206014605/https://docs.yugabyte.com/preview/explore/multi-region-deployments/row-level-geo-partitioning/ hereinafter referenced as YugabyteDB in view of Horovitz et al. US2018/0204145 in view of Hines US2018/0276242 in view of Li et al. US2016/0147751 in view of Yan US2019/0342620
Regarding claim 3, Holmes-Mitra as modified teaches: storing, in an in-memory index geographic data for regions (YugebyteDB see pages 2, 3, 5, 6, 11 querying for data on a geographic partition based on geographical requirement of data such as reserve bank of India or the United States such that indexes are created and associated with each partition)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include geo-partitioning taught by YugabyteDB for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Holmes-Mitra does not teach: dividing the surface of the earth into a plurality of cells with equal dimensions;
mapping the cells to a plurality of geographic regions with one or more portions encompassed by the cells; and
storing, for respective ones of the cells, geographic data for regions having one or more portions encompassed by the respective ones of the cells.
Yan teaches: dividing the surface of the earth into a plurality of cells with equal dimensions;
mapping the cells to a plurality of geographic regions with one or more portions encompassed by the cells; and (Yan see paragraph 0005 0045-0047 map with geographic location is divided into cells corresponding to geographic locations such that each cell is a specified size)
storing, for respective ones of the cells, geographic data for regions having one or more portions encompassed by the respective ones of the cells. (Yan see paragraphs 0007 0046 0070 0134 virtual prompt associated and placed in divided cell for geographic location)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include dividing map into cells as taught by Yan for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Regarding claim 4, Holmes-Mitra as modified teaches: wherein the plurality of geographic regions include areas encompassing one or more of the following: a town, city, a state, a country, and a continent. (YugebyteDB see pages 2, 3, 5, 6, 11 India, United States, EU)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include geo-partitioning taught by YugabyteDB for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Regarding claim 19, see rejection of claim 3
Claim(s) 5, 11, 14, and 20 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes-Mitra et al. US2023/0198765 in view of YugebyteDB “Row-level geo-partitioning” 12/6/2022 https://web.archive.org/web/20221206014605/https://docs.yugabyte.com/preview/explore/multi-region-deployments/row-level-geo-partitioning/ hereinafter referenced as YugabyteDB in view of Horovitz et al. US2018/0204145 in view of Hines US2018/0276242 in view of Myllymaki et al. US8301639
Regarding claim 5, Holmes-Mitra as modified further teaches: batch query (Horovitz see paragraph 0134 launch queries in batch as a set of queries)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include batch queries as taught by Horovitz for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
Holmes-Mitra does not teach: wherein the set of query data included in the query includes a plurality of geographic coordinates, and wherein the geographic region data retrieved for the corresponding subset of query data includes data for a geographic region that encompasses a point specified by geographic coordinates included in the query.
Myllymaki teaches: wherein the set of query data included in the query includes a plurality of geographic coordinates, and wherein the geographic region data retrieved for the corresponding subset of query data includes data for a geographic region that encompasses a point specified by geographic coordinates included in the query. (Myllymaki see col.4 lines 8-31 col. 6 lines 20-28 storing a set of queries such that a query is associated with geographical coordinates corresponding to a location, city, venue for example Empire State Building or NYC)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include geographic coordinates as taught by Myllymaki for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data
Regarding claim 11, Holmes-Mitra does not teach: wherein the geographic region data retrieved by one or more of the plurality of query engines includes one or more types of the following types of geographic variables: city, state, population, population per square mile, region shape area, and region shape length
Myllymaki teaches: wherein the geographic region data retrieved by one or more of the plurality of query engines includes one or more types of the following types of geographic variables: city, state, population, population per square mile, region shape area, and region shape length. (Myllymaki see col.4 lines 8-31 col. 6 lines 20-28 storing a set of queries such that a query is associated with geographical coordinates corresponding to a location, city, venue for example Empire State Building or NYC)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include geographic coordinates as taught by Myllymaki for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data
Regarding claim 14, see rejection of claim 5
Regarding claim 20, see rejection of claim 11
Claim(s) 7 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes-Mitra et al. US2023/0198765 in view of YugebyteDB “Row-level geo-partitioning” 12/6/2022 https://web.archive.org/web/20221206014605/https://docs.yugabyte.com/preview/explore/multi-region-deployments/row-level-geo-partitioning/ hereinafter referenced as YugabyteDB in view of Horovitz et al. US2018/0204145 in view of Hines US2018/0276242 in view of Schmidt et al. US2014/0280483
Regarding claim 7, Holmes-Mitra does not teach: wherein the aggregated data store is an online database cache.
Schmidt teaches: wherein the aggregated data store is an online database cache. (Schmidt see paragraph 0029 online system with local database cache)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include a database cache as taught by Schmidt for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data
Claim(s) 9, 15, 17 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes-Mitra et al. US2023/0198765 in view of YugebyteDB “Row-level geo-partitioning” 12/6/2022 https://web.archive.org/web/20221206014605/https://docs.yugabyte.com/preview/explore/multi-region-deployments/row-level-geo-partitioning/ hereinafter referenced as YugabyteDB in view of Horovitz et al. US2018/0204145 in view of Hines US2018/0276242 in view of Sainanee et al. US11100106
Regarding claim 9, Holmes-Mitra as modified teaches: wherein the computer system is a distributed computing system, wherein the partitioning and the assigning are performed via a mapping procedure of the distributed computing system, wherein the causing the plurality of query engines to retrieve geographic region data of the distributed computing system, and by the distributed computing system is determined (Holmes-Mitra see paragraph 0001 0094 0098 0137 in distributed computing system, sets of queries partitioned by geographic location for computing entities to process query associated with their particular geographic location where partitioning based on location reads on mapping)
Retrieve data is performed via a summary procedure, data specified in the batch query. (Horovitz see paragraph 0011 0031-0033 0044 0134 launch queries in batch as a set of queries such that batches are transmitted in series by user request and results responded by cached results where responding by cached results reads on summary procedure)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include batch queries as taught by Horovitz for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data
Holmes-Mitra does not teach: wherein a number of query engines executed based on an amount of data included in the set of query data
Sainanee teaches: wherein a number of query engines executed based on an amount of data included in the set of query data (Sainanee see col. 7 lines 1-33 col. 8 lines 65-67 col. 9 lines 1-35 selecting preferred query engine or multiple query engines based on performance characteristics such as estimate amount o data or largest operator)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include selected query engines as taught by Sainanee for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data
Regarding claim 15, see rejection of claim 9
Regarding claim 17, see rejection of claim 9
Claim(s) 12 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes-Mitra et al. US2023/0198765 in view of YugebyteDB “Row-level geo-partitioning” 12/6/2022 https://web.archive.org/web/20221206014605/https://docs.yugabyte.com/preview/explore/multi-region-deployments/row-level-geo-partitioning/ hereinafter referenced as YugabyteDB in view of Horovitz et al. US2018/0204145 in view of Hines US2018/0276242 in view of Myllymaki et al. US8301639 in view of Sainanee et al. US11100106
Regarding claim 12, Holmes-Mitra as modified further teaches: partitioning the plurality of queries into subsets of query data;
assigning a first subset of query data to a first query engine;
retrieving, by the first query enginel distributed databases, region data for a plurality of regions included in the first subset of query data; and (Holmes-Mitra see paragraph 0001 0094 0098 0137 in distributed computing system, sets of queries partitioned by geographic location for computing entities to process query associated with their particular geographic location where partitioning based on location reads on mapping)
prior to receiving the query, receiving a plurality of queries;
generating, by a plurality of query engines, a plurality of in-memory indexes, wherein generating a given in-memory index includes: (YugebyteDB see pages 2, 3, 5, 6, 11 indexes are created and associated with each partition then query for geo-partition)
storing, by the first query engine, the region data for the plurality of regions in an in-memory index of the first query engine. (YugebyteDB see pages 2, 3, 5, 6, 11 indexes are created and associated with each partition then query for geo-partition)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include geo-partitioning taught by YugabyteDB for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data.
batch queries. (Horovitz see paragraph 0011 0031-0033 0044 0134 launch queries in batch as a set of queries such that batches are transmitted in series by user request and results responded by cached results where responding by cached results reads on summary procedure)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include batch queries as taught by Horovitz for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data
Holmes-Mitra does not teach: from one or more non-relational databases, corresponding to geographic coordinates
Myllymaki teaches: corresponding to geographic coordinates (Myllymaki see col.4 lines 8-31 col. 6 lines 20-28 storing a set of queries such that a query is associated with geographical coordinates corresponding to a location, city, venue for example Empire State Building or NYC)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include geographic coordinates as taught by Myllymaki for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data
Holmes-Mitra does not teach: from one or more non-relational databases
Sainanee teaches: from one or more non-relational databases (Sainanee see col. 2 lines 49-67 nosql, object oriented DB)
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 a query based on geographical location as taught by Holmes-Mitra to include selected query engines as taught by Sainanee for the predictable result of more efficiently organizing and managing data
Response to arguments
Applicant’s argument: Prior art of reference does not teach “a given geographic partition… regions”
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is considered but is not persuasive. Without specific definitions of geographic partition, cell and region they are all meant to be interpreted as geographic fragments and portions. Hines specifically teaches geographic regions as nodes or cells at multiple levels of granularity which teaches the claimed concept. Hines also uses the term “geographic region” and “cell” verbatim with the same function as used in the claims.
Applicant’s argument: Prior art of reference does not teach newly amended portion “wherein the partitioning…. Located” and newly amended section “identifying..Data”
Examiner’s response: Applicant’s argument is considered but is not persuasive. As described in the previous argument, Hines reference teaches the use of a geographic region and cells. Hines also teaches user requests for map data in a specified geographic region and determine using tree structure representing geographic region a cell representing for example United States such that geographic region is bound by latitude and longitude coordinates which reads on the claimed concept.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN S LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kavita Stanley can be reached on (571)272-8352. 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.
/ALLEN S LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights