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 .
Specification
the abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as “… are disclosed,” “this disclosure concerns,” “the disclosure describes.” Here, the abstract uses the term “provided …” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: ‘a first conversion unit that converts... a second conversion unit that converts ... a search unit that searches...’ in claims 1,7, 8 without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. SEE ALSO MPEP 2181: Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is the structure, material or act described in the specification as performing the entire claimed function and equivalents to the disclosed structure, material or act. As a result, section 112(f) or pre-AIA section 112, sixth paragraph, limitations will, in some cases, be afforded a more narrow interpretation than a limitation that is not crafted in "means plus function" format. See related 112a and 112b rejections below for details of written description analyses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, claim limitation(s) is/are: ‘a first conversion unit that converts... a second conversion unit that converts ... a search unit that searches...’ in claims 1,7, 8 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the written description is deficient.
Claims 2-6 are rejected due to dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Per Federal Register [Vol. 76, No 27, Weds. Feb 9, 2011] guidance, pg. 7167:
The following is a list of non-structural terms that may invoke § 112, ¶6: "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." This list is not exhaustive and other non-structural terms may invoke § 112, ¶6
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation(s) is/are: a first conversion unit that converts... a second conversion unit that converts ... a search unit that searches...’ in claims 1,7, 8 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Claims 2-6 are rejected due to dependency.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kunde et al. (US 20190294977).
With regards to claim 1, Kunde teaches a template creation support system that supports creation of a template in which a dependency relationship for a resource of one service among a plurality of available services to call a resource of another service is set, the template creation support system comprising: a memory unit that memorizes information of a template group in which one or more resources provided in each of the plurality of services are set, the template group collecting templates guaranteed to operate (…The memory module 103 (also referred to as ‘storage medium’) can be configured to store all information associated with all stages/processes in the architecture recommendation (note: curated reference-architecture library (i.e., claimed template) is definitionally vetted/working), in a volatile and/or non-volatile storage space. For example, the memory module 103 stores all the reference databases, all the metrics…; [0053], Kunde);
a first conversion unit that converts each template of the template group into a graph including a node indicating a service and an edge indicating a relationship between services based on the dependency relationship between the set resources (…the recommendation engine 102 identifies, by comparing the inputs with a database of reference architectures (stored in the form of directed acyclic graphs) (i.e., converts to graph before storing), a reference architecture (i.e., claimed template) that matches the inputs...; [0071], Kunde);
an input unit that receives an input including information indicating a system configuration desired by a user and an operation of each component from a user terminal (The I/O interface 101 is configured to provide suitable interface for any external entity to interact with the architecture recommendation system 100, for performing any action associated with the architecture recommendation process. ...The I/O interface 101 may further allow at least one of data access, data exchange, configuration of settings and so on… (i.e., I/O interface collects user input describing architecture requirements and their operational features); [0017], Kunde. …With respect to each of different architectural requirements such as datastore, data processing, and visualization, various properties and values are fed as input…; [0062], Kunde);
a second conversion unit that converts the input received by the input unit into a graph including a node indicating a service and an edge indicating a relationship between services (...The graph generation module 201 further generates an acyclic dependency graph based on the extracted parameters and values (i.e., converts input into a graph), wherein the parameters form the edges of the graph and the values form leaf nodes...; [0056], Kunde);
a search unit that searches, from the template group, a template of a graph close to the graph converted by the second conversion unit from among the graphs converted by the first conversion unit The similarity metric generation module 202 is configured to generate a similarity metric that indicates or represents extent of similarity between the architecture requirements specified in the user input and the reference architectures available with a reference database in the memory module 103. Based on extent of similarity with the architecture requirements, one or more reference architectures are selected by the similarity metric generation module 202 so as to compare with the user input...; [0057], Kunde);
and an output unit that outputs a setting item set in the template searched by the search unit (The architecture recommendation module 206 is configured to generate one or more architecture recommendation, based on the components and technologies selected by the component selection module 203 and the technology selection module 204 respectively. The architecture recommendation module 206 can be configured to generate recommendations in one or more specific formats, as pre-configured or as required in response to a demand from the user. The recommendations are then provided to the user, in response to the architecture requirements specified in the user input. In an embodiment, the architecture recommendation includes recommendation of selected components and technologies, wherein the recommended technologies are inter-operable; (i.e., component/technology selection module 203-204 select components and technologies tied to the matched reference architecture and output the recommendation); [0061], Kunde).
With regards to claims 7 and 8, the claim limitations are identical and/or equivalent in scope to claim 1, therefore, claims 7 and 8 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunde in view of Waplington (US 20250150340).
With regards to claim 2, Kunde teaches the template creation support system according to claim 1, …the template creation support system further comprising a storage unit that stores information of a setting item group in which a setting item set in each template of the template group is registered for each service (…The memory module 103 (also referred to as ‘storage medium’) can be configured to store all information associated with all stages/processes in the architecture recommendation (i.e., claimed template), in a volatile and/or non-volatile storage space. For example, the memory module 103 stores all the reference databases, all the metrics…; [0053], Kunde. ...the recommendation engine 102 selects components that match the architecture requirements. In the similar manner, the recommendation engine 102 selects technologies that match the components selected... (i.e., memory module stores for each reference architecture (template), the set of components/technologies associated with each layer (claimed service) constitutes setting item set registered for each service); [0036], Kunde).
Kunde does not teach a system that is communicably connected to an artificial intelligence system that generates an answer in response to a prompt nor does Kunde teach the output unit extracts, for each service, a setting item associated with the template searched by the search unit from the setting item group, inputs, to the artificial intelligence system, a prompt to output, for each service, an insufficient portion of an insufficient setting item for the input received by the input unit based on the extracted setting item, and transmits the insufficient portion for each service output from the artificial intelligence system to the user terminal.
However, in the same field of endeavor Waplington teaches a system that is communicably connected to an artificial intelligence system that generates an answer in response to a prompt nor does Kunde teach the output unit extracts, for each service, a setting item associated with the template searched by the search unit from the setting item group, inputs, to the artificial intelligence system, a prompt to output, for each service, an insufficient portion of an insufficient setting item for the input received by the input unit based on the extracted setting item, and transmits the insufficient portion for each service output from the artificial intelligence system to the user terminal (…application 802 may involve use of a trained generative AI model to predict values of missing attributes (i.e., outputting the insufficient portion on an insufficient (incomplete/missing values) setting item). In this case, the generative AI model can be trained (or fine-tuned) on records of complete configuration items in CMDB 500 (i.e., setting items) so that it can understand the structure and values commonly found in missing attributes… (i.e., extracting setting item group); [0173], Waplington. Prompts may be strings of text that serve as the initial input sequence that conditions the state of a generative AI model… the generative AI model may determine that various patterns exist in the configuration items of CMDB 500. One such pattern may be that a certain model_id is always associated with a particular manufacturer, though the converse is not always true. …the generative AI model may find that most or all configuration items with a certain model_id and location have a particular cpu_count… (i.e., setting item associated with matched item); [0177-0177], Waplington. ...The result of automated reconciliation 804 could be a list of partial configuration items that are potentially reconciled (e.g., missing attributes are populated). This list can be submitted to IRE 514 for processing, possibly after user review and approval... (i.e., transmits the insufficient portion for each service output from the artificial intelligence system to the user terminal); [0153], Waplington).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kunde’s architecture-recommendation system to incorporate Waplington’s generative AI based attribute prediction to complete a user’s under-specified input. Such modification would have improved Kunde’s system by making its output more complete by automatically identifying and supplying the insufficient portion of any setting item the user’s input failed to specify.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunde in view of Waplington, further in view of Mansour et al. (US 20250005263).
With regards to claim 3, Kunde teaches through Waplington the limitations of claim 3 as applied to claim 2 except for wherein the output unit transmits, to the user terminal, access information for accessing a site that serves as a reference for correction of the insufficient portion output from the artificial intelligence system together with the insufficient portion.
However, in the same field of endeavor Mansour teaches a system wherein the output unit transmits, to the user terminal, access information for accessing a site that serves as a reference for correction of the insufficient portion output from the artificial intelligence system together with the insufficient portion (In response to receiving the response from the generative output engine 2830, the first automated chat service 2824 may provide the response as a search query to the knowledge base platform 2832 or other content store. In response the knowledge base platform 2832 or other content store may provide a set of search results, which may include an identifier of a respective set of content items and/or a link to each respective content item. The search results may be provided to the user via the messaging platform...; [0365] Mansour. ...The response message generated by the first automated chat service 2824 may also include links to one or more of the top-ranking subsets of content items, content summaries of each respective linked content item, and other content generated using the search results or subsequent prompts provided to the generative output engine 2830 (i.e., transmitting to the user’s client device, the AI-generated output together with a link (access information) to a knowledge base content item); [0366], Mansour. (Note: Waplington teaches Ai-predicted “insufficient potion” of a missing setting item. Mansour teaches sending predicted output with a link to the reference/knowledge-base source)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kunde/Waplington system to incorporate Mansour’s link-pairing technique as a known solution for making an AI-generated suggestion independently verifiable. Such combination would have yielded the predictable result of a source-backed setting item recommendation.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunde in view of Ramani et al. (US 20130311450).
With regards to claim 4, Kunde teaches the template creation support system according to claim 1, wherein … the search unit calculates similarity … of each template of the template group converted by the first conversion unit and the graph converted by the second conversion unit, and searches a template of a graph of GK having the highest similarity from the template group (…the recommendation engine 102 identifies, by comparing the inputs with a database of reference architectures (stored in the form of directed acyclic graphs) (i.e., template group converted by the first conversion unit), a reference architecture that matches the inputs...; [0071], Kunde. … generating a similarity index corresponding to the user input, wherein the similarity index indicates extent of similarity between the architecture requirement and each of a plurality of reference architectures in a reference database (i.e., template group) at component level; and selecting a reference architecture for which the similarity index is maximum (i.e., template having highest similarity), as the reference architecture that matches the architecture requirement specified in the user input; Claim 3, Kunde).
Kunde does not teach conversion unit setting a weight of an edge to an element having a dependency relationship in GK/GI, which is an adjacent matrix of the template storing information of the graph, based on a dependency relationship between nodes of the graph obtained by converting the template for each template of the template group and input received by the input unit nor does Kunde teach calculating similarity from a difference between GI and GK.
However, in the same field of endeavor Ramani teaches, setting a weight of an edge to an element having a dependency relationship in GK/GI, which is an adjacent matrix of the template storing information of the graph, based on a dependency relationship between nodes of the graph obtained by converting the template for each template of the template group and input received by the input unit (… To enable this matching, the adjacency matrix of the graph is designed to represent these geometric properties. A non-zero entry in the matrix represents a connection between two geometric entities (topology) (i.e., weight of an edge … assigned to an element having dependency relationship). The value of the entry uniquely represents the type of connection (edge-loop, loop-loop, surface-surface, edge-edge, and so on). This adjacency matrix can be used for any graph matching method including the decision-theoretic sub-graph isomorphism algorithm as well as association graph techniques (note: Kunde’s template graph constitute as GK and input graph as GI); [0466], Ramani).
Search unit calculates similarity from a difference between GI and GK ( …The low-level graph matcher which finds a similarity degree between the query model and these models, based on a graph matching algorithm as described below. ... A non-zero entry in the matrix represents a connection between two geometric entities (topology). The value of the entry uniquely represents the type of connection (edge-loop, loop-loop, surface-surface, edge-edge, and so on). This adjacency matrix can be used for any graph matching method including the decision-theoretic sub-graph isomorphism algorithm as well as association graph techniques; [0466], Ramani. Combining the two, Kunde’s similarity index is computed as a difference/comparison between the GI matrix (query/input) and each GK matrix (stored templates) using Ramani’s matrix-based graph matching technique, and the template whose GK yields the highest similarity is selected).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kunde’s abstract similarity index to incorporate Ramani’s adjacency matrix technique to make graph comparison computationally tractable. Such combination would have predictably yield result of a computable similarity score between the input graph and each template graph.
With regards to claim 6, Kunde teaches through Ramani the template creation support system according to claim 4, wherein GK of each template of the template group and GI of the input received by the input unit are adjacent matrices having nodes indicating the plurality of services as rows and columns (Kunde teaches that both the templates (reference architectures) and the user input are represented as graphs whose nodes correspond to the architectural elements being compared – “…generates an acyclic dependency graph based on the extracted parameters and values…”; [0056], Kunde, and stores reference architectures “…in the form of directed acyclic graphs…”[0071], Kunde – with the graph nodes corresponding to the components/layers (services) of each architecture. Ramani teaches that the standard implementation of such a graph, matrix-based comparison, is a square adjacency matrix indexed by the graph’s own nodes on both axes: “…the adjacency matrix of the graph is designed to represent these geometric properties. A non-zero entry in the matrix represents a connection between two geometric entities (topology)…” [0466], Ramani. A non-zero matrix entry located at row i, column j necessarily requires the matrix’s rows and columns to each be indexed by the graph’s nodes. Combining the two – implementing Kunde’s template graph (GK) and input graph (GI) in Ramani’s adjacency-matrix form yields matrices whose rows and columns are indexed by Kunde’s graph nodes – the services/architectural components/layers of each template and of the input).
The same rationale to combine for claim 4 applies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAYEEM KAZI whose telephone number is (571)397-2559. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/EMMANUEL L MOISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights