The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under first to invent provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to communications filed 12/18/2025.
Claims 1-6 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant`s arguments filed December 18, 2025 have been fully considered and they are persuasive with respect to prior art rejection. IDS dated 12/23/2025 is acknowledged.
As per the 103 rejection of claims 1, 9 and 15, Applicant argued Applicant argued that, the rejection apparently mapped the claimed "central controller" to the "Centralized Discovery Controller (CDC)" of Paulchamy, and mapped the claimed "storage devices that were previously registered with a central controller" to the "list of DLEIDs" that is sent from the "CDC" to an "end device.
Applicants respectfully disagree with this rejection. Specifically, Paulchamy appears to be silent regarding the "list of DLEIDs" identifying devices that were not previously registered with a central controller. Rather, Paulchamy appears to describe something quite different, namely that the "list of DLEIDs" identifies devices that have been registered with the CDC.
Paulchamy fails to disclose at least the aforementioned subject matter of amended independent claim 1 of “identify storage devices that were previously registered with a central controller of the storage network as a first subset of the plurality of storage devices; determine a second subset of the plurality of storage devices that were not previously registered with the central controller”.
However, Paulchamy discloses a list of DLEIDs that a CDC has assigned to each entry that has been registered for the end device, including another end device that the end device has registered with the CDC (Paragraph 0038); FIG. 2 is a diagram that illustrates an exemplary use of DLEIDs for performing a plurality of registrations by an end device, according to embodiments of the present disclosure. The example device in FIG. 2 may be any NVMe® host or an NVM subsystem that forms a persistent connection (e.g., a TCP connection) with a CDC. As depicted, in one or more embodiments, the NVMe® device, in response to forming the connection, may register a set of DLEs with the CDC. The DLEs may identify devices or interfaces of devices in a fabric. Upon successful registration or some later time, the CDC may send to the NVMe® device a confirmation of the registration. Further, the CDC may assign DLEIDs associated with each of the entries, devices, and/or interfaces that have been registered with the CDC (Paragraph 0042); once a new host (denoted “Host n” in FIG. 8C) enters the NVMe-oF™ environment, e.g., by performing steps such as sending to the CDC a connect command to establish a connection, registering with the CDC, etc., the CDC may update the host list and a differential log page that keeps track of and includes changes that occurred since the counter was set to value A (Paragraph 0073); in response to a new host registering with the CDC, the CDC may update (1015) the host discovery list and, in response to receiving from the DDC a DLEID brief bit in a get log page response, communicate (1020) the updated host discovery list to the DDC. Finally, in response to the DDC detecting a new entry for the host in its database and sending a second get log page response to a second get log page request, the CDC may send (1025) to the DDC a host discovery list that comprises detailed log page information regarding the new entry (Paragraph 0082), wherein, as disclosed by Paulchamy, sets of devices are registered while new devices that are formed and were not registered yet, after being detected to be registered to correspond to the claimed limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 9-12, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Paulchamy et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0020059 hereinafter referred to as Paulchamy).
As per independent claim 1, Paulchamy discloses a computing device comprising: a processor; and a machine-readable storage storing instructions, the instructions executable by the processor to: identify a plurality of storage devices included in a storage network [(Paragraphs 0036-0038; FIGs. 1-3 and related text) wherein Paulchamy teaches FIG. 1 depicts CDC connections in an exemplary NVMe-oF™ environment, according to embodiments of the present disclosure. In one or more embodiments, CDC 130 may be used to facilitate discovery in network 100. End devices, such as hosts (e.g., 105 and 110) and storage subsystem (e.g., 120 and 125), may register with CDC 130, which information may be used for a number of purposes, such as zoning. In one or more embodiments, a management system 150, which may be controlled by an administrator, may provide an interface to the CDC 130 to allow an admin to perform any of a number of functions, such as, monitor, set policies, perform configurations, define zones, etc. In a system in which an exemplary, e.g., end device 120 that has ten interfaces receives an asynchronous event notification (AEN) from CDC 130, which notifies end device 120 that some change has occurred, and end device 120 sends a get log page command to CDC 130, CDC 130 may return a get log page response that comprises information about all ten interfaces. Thus, the onus of determining the details of the actual changes is on end device 120. In other words, end device has no ability to selectively obtain from CDC 130 information about a discovery log page for a specific entry or interface affected by that change. As a result, the traffic and required processing of the discovery log page responses by end device 120 may consume a great amount of computing resources and time depending, among other things, on the extent of network 100 to correspond to the claimed limitation]; identify storage devices that were previously registered with a central controller of the storage network as a first subset of the plurality of storage devices [(Paragraphs 0036-0038; FIGs. 1-3 and related text) wherein Paulchamy teaches a get log page request that comprises a log page identifier (LPI) may be used to allow an end device to obtain a list of DLEIDs that a CDC has assigned to each entry that has been registered for the end device, including another end device that the end device has registered with the CDC. In one or more embodiments, a CDC, such as CDC 130 in the example in FIG. 1, may include, e.g., in a get log page response, a DLEID that notifies an end device (e.g., end device 120) of changes associated with that DLEID, such that the subsystem may utilize the DLEID to specifically request a get log page associated with that DLEID. Alternatively, CDC 130 may use the DLEID of the subsystem to tailor the get log page response to information associated with the subsystem's DLEID, e.g., by filtering the information from an allowed list associated with the subsystem's DLEID to correspond to the claimed limitation]; determine a second subset of the plurality of storage devices that were not previously registered with the central controller [(Paragraphs 0038-0040; FIGs. 1-3 and related text) wherein Paulchamy teaches a get log page response generated by the CDC may comprise a DLEID field in every DLPE. As a result, each end device may query a CDC to learn DLEIDs of those devices that are accessible to the querying device, e.g., based on zoning configuration. In addition, the querying device may use the DLEID of any device that it has registered with the CDC to request a get log page response that comprises information about devices that are accessible to that device, e.g., based on that device's own zoning configuration. Further, in one or more embodiments, DLEIDs may be used in a get log page query and as Fully Qualified Name, e.g., when performing a manual or subsystem-driven zoning configuration. Advantageously, this may simplify zoning and zone member protocol definitions and, in embodiments, may replace a set of existing zone member types. Furthermore, in one or more embodiments, a DLEID-based get log page command may be used to perform push and pull registrations, e.g., when a specific set of end devices are to be queried. Advantageously, this may reduce messages size and, thus, the number of messages that need to be exchanged, e.g., during the addition or deletion of end devices, especially in larger environments to correspond to the claimed limitation]; and register the second subset of the plurality of storage devices on the central controller of the storage network [(Paragraphs 0038-0040; FIGs. 1-3 and related text) wherein Paulchamy teaches DLEIDs may be used in a get log page query and as Fully Qualified Name, e.g., when performing a manual or subsystem-driven zoning configuration. Advantageously, this may simplify zoning and zone member protocol definitions and, in embodiments, may replace a set of existing zone member types. Furthermore, in one or more embodiments, a DLEID-based get log page command may be used to perform push and pull registrations, e.g., when a specific set of end devices are to be queried. Advantageously, this may reduce messages size and, thus, the number of messages that need to be exchanged, e.g., during the addition or deletion of end devices, especially in larger environments to correspond to the claimed limitation].
As per dependent claim 2, Paulchamy discloses register, on the central controller, the computing device as a proxy storage device [(Paragraphs 0036-0042 and 0077-0080; FIGs. 1-3 and related text) wherein Paulchamy teaches that FIG. 1 depicts CDC connections in an exemplary NVMe-oF™ environment, according to embodiments of the present disclosure. In one or more embodiments, CDC 130 may be used to facilitate discovery in network 100. End devices, such as hosts (e.g., 105 and 110) and storage subsystem (e.g., 120 and 125), may register with CDC 130, which information may be used for a number of purposes, such as zoning. In one or more embodiments, a management system 150, which may be controlled by an administrator, may provide an interface to the CDC 130 to allow an admin to perform any of a number of functions, such as, monitor, set policies, perform configurations, define zones, etc. In a system in which an exemplary, e.g., end device 120 that has ten interfaces receives an asynchronous event notification (AEN) from CDC 130, which notifies end device 120 that some change has occurred, and end device 120 sends a get log page command to CDC 130, CDC 130 may return a get log page response that comprises information about all ten interfaces. Thus, the onus of determining the details of the actual changes is on end device 120. In other words, end device has no ability to selectively obtain from CDC 130 information about a discovery log page for a specific entry or interface affected by that change; FIG. 2 is a diagram that illustrates an exemplary use of DLEIDs for performing a plurality of registrations by an end device, according to embodiments of the present disclosure. The example device in FIG. 2 may be any NVMe® host or an NVM subsystem that forms a persistent connection (e.g., a TCP connection) with a CDC. As depicted, in one or more embodiments, the NVMe® device, in response to forming the connection, may register a set of DLEs with the CDC. The DLEs may identify devices or interfaces of devices in a fabric. Upon successful registration or some later time, the CDC may send to the NVMe® device a confirmation of the registration. Further, the CDC may assign DLEIDs associated with each of the entries, devices, and/or interfaces that have been registered with the CDC to correspond to the claimed limitation], wherein the second subset is an initial set of non-compliant storage (NCS) devices included in the storage network; and register, on the central controller, the initial set of NCS devices as a plurality of subsystems of the proxy storage device [(Paragraphs 0059-0061 and 0077-0080; FIGs. 1-3 and related text) wherein Paulchamy teaches that FIG. 9 is a flowchart illustrating a process for using DLEIDs in connection with pull registrations, according to embodiments of the present disclosure. In one or more embodiments, process 900 may start when, in response to establishing an explicit persistent connection with a DDC by using a pull registration, a CDC performs (905) a host list pre-loading process that comprises communicating a host discovery list to the DDC. The pre-loading process may comprise sending to the DDC an AER to trigger an AEN that causes the CDC to send a third get log page request that inquires about a command that the CDC should execute to communicate the host discovery list to the DDC. The pre-loading process may further comprise, in response to receiving a counter value and a third get log page response that comprises the command, performing steps comprising: (1) executing the command to communicate the host discovery list to the DDC; (2) updating the counter value; and (3) receiving a confirmation that the counter value has been updated. In one or more embodiments, in response to the host discovery list being used to perform one or more zoning operations, the CDC may receive (910) from the DDC zoning data regarding an active zone and communicate (915) to a host a DLPE from a list of DLPEs for each zone member in the active zone to correspond to the claimed limitation].
As per dependent claim 3, Paulchamy discloses subsequent to registering the initial set of NCS devices on the central controller: determine an updated set of NCS devices included in the storage network; determine changes between the initial and updated sets of NCS devices [(Paragraphs 0059-0061 and 0077-0080; FIGs. 1-3 and related text) wherein Paulchamy teaches in response to receiving from the querying device an asynchronous event request (AER), the CDC may communicate (315) an asynchronous event notification (AEN), which informs the querying device about a change associated with an impacted DLEID that is impacted by the change. Further, the CDC may receive (320) from the querying device a second get log page request that comprises a discovery log page flag that indicates that a command in the second get log page request comprises the impacted DLEID, e.g., a DLEID that identifies an end device interface that is accessible to one or more end devices. Finally, the CDC may communicate (325) to the querying device, e.g., in a second get log page response, log page information that is associated with the impacted DLEID to inform the querying device of the one or more end devices; once a host (e.g., Host n in FIG. 8C) is removed from the environment, or is deregistered from the CDC, the CDC may update the differential log page, receive an AEN from the DDC, and perform similar steps as after being registering, with the main difference that the discovery log page that the DDC receives indicates that a host has been removed or deregistered. It is noted that the host discovery list is not constrained by existing zoning configurations to only accessible hosts to correspond to the claimed limitation]; and request a modified registration of the proxy storage device based on the determined changes between the initial and updated sets of NCS devices [(Paragraphs 0059-0061 and 0077; FIGs. 1-3 and related text) wherein Paulchamy teaches where the CDC may communicate (325) to the querying device, e.g., in a second get log page response, log page information that is associated with the impacted DLEID to inform the querying device of the one or more end devices; once a host (e.g., Host n in FIG. 8C) is removed from the environment, or is deregistered from the CDC, the CDC may update the differential log page, receive an AEN from the DDC, and perform similar steps as after being registering, with the main difference that the discovery log page that the DDC receives indicates that a host has been removed or deregistered. It is noted that the host discovery list is not constrained by existing zoning configurations to only accessible hosts to correspond to the claimed limitation].
As per dependent claim 6, Paulchamy discloses subsequent to determining the second subset: send, to the second subset, query requests for configuration information of the second subset [(Paragraphs 0038-0040; FIGs. 1-3 and related text) wherein Paulchamy teaches a get log page response generated by the CDC may comprise a DLEID field in every DLPE. As a result, each end device may query a CDC to learn DLEIDs of those devices that are accessible to the querying device, e.g., based on zoning configuration. In addition, the querying device may use the DLEID of any device that it has registered with the CDC to request a get log page response that comprises information about devices that are accessible to that device, e.g., based on that device's own zoning configuration. Further, in one or more embodiments, DLEIDs may be used in a get log page query and as Fully Qualified Name, e.g., when performing a manual or subsystem-driven zoning configuration. Advantageously, this may simplify zoning and zone member protocol definitions and, in embodiments, may replace a set of existing zone member types to correspond to the claimed limitation]; and register the second subset on the central controller based at least on the configuration information of the second subset [(Paragraphs 0038-0040; FIGs. 1-3 and related text) wherein Paulchamy teaches a DLEID-based get log page command may be used to perform push and pull registrations, e.g., when a specific set of end devices are to be queried. Advantageously, this may reduce messages size and, thus, the number of messages that need to be exchanged, e.g., during the addition or deletion of end devices, especially in larger environments to correspond to the claimed limitation].
As per dependent claim 7, Paulchamy discloses wherein the second subset of storage devices are configured by central controller after being registered on the central controller [(Paragraphs 0036-0040; FIGs. 1-3 and related text) wherein Paulchamy teaches FIG. 1 depicts CDC connections in an exemplary NVMe-oF™ environment, according to embodiments of the present disclosure. In one or more embodiments, CDC 130 may be used to facilitate discovery in network 100. End devices, such as hosts (e.g., 105 and 110) and storage subsystem (e.g., 120 and 125), may register with CDC 130, which information may be used for a number of purposes, such as zoning. In one or more embodiments, a management system 150, which may be controlled by an administrator, may provide an interface to the CDC 130 to allow an admin to perform any of a number of functions, such as, monitor, set policies, perform configurations, define zones, etc., further a get log page response generated by the CDC may comprise a DLEID field in every DLPE. As a result, each end device may query a CDC to learn DLEIDs of those devices that are accessible to the querying device, e.g., based on zoning configuration. In addition, the querying device may use the DLEID of any device that it has registered with the CDC to request a get log page response that comprises information about devices that are accessible to that device, e.g., based on that device's own zoning configuration to correspond to the claimed limitation].
As per dependent claim 8, Paulchamy discloses wherein the central controller is a central discovery controller (CDC) of the storage network [(Paragraphs 0036-0040; FIGs. 1-3 and related text) wherein Paulchamy teaches FIG. 1 depicts CDC connections in an exemplary NVMe-oF™ environment, according to embodiments of the present disclosure. In one or more embodiments, CDC 130 may be used to facilitate discovery in network 100. End devices, such as hosts (e.g., 105 and 110) and storage subsystem (e.g., 120 and 125), may register with CDC 130, which information may be used for a number of purposes, such as zoning. In one or more embodiments, a management system 150, which may be controlled by an administrator, may provide an interface to the CDC 130 to allow an admin to perform any of a number of functions, such as, monitor, set policies, perform configurations, define zones, etc. to correspond to the claimed limitation].
As for independent claims 9 and 15, the applicant is directed to the rejections to claim 1 set forth above, as they are rejected based on the same rationale.
As for dependent claims 11 and 16, the applicant is directed to the rejections to claim 2 set forth above, as they are rejected based on the same rationale.
As for dependent claims 12 and 17, the applicant is directed to the rejections to claim 3 set forth above, as they are rejected based on the same rationale.
As for dependent claim 10, the applicant is directed to the rejections to claim 8 set forth above, as they are rejected based on the same rationale.
As for dependent claim 20, the applicant is directed to the rejections to claim 6 set forth above, as they are rejected based on the same rationale.
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 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.
Claims 4, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being disclosed by Paulchamy, as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Guo et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0147784 hereinafter referred to as Guo).
As per dependent claim 4, Paulchamy discloses the computing device according to claim 2.
Paulchamy does not appear to explicitly disclose subsequent to registering the initial set of NCS devices on the central controller: send a periodic packet to the central controller, wherein the central controller is to, in response to a receipt of the periodic packet, maintain the proxy storage device and the initial set of NCS devices as registered on the central controller.
However, Sumedrea discloses subsequent to registering the initial set of NCS devices on the central controller: send a periodic packet to the central controller, wherein the central controller is to, in response to a receipt of the periodic packet, maintain the proxy storage device and the initial set of NCS devices as registered on the central controller [(Paragraphs 0057-0059 and 0118) wherein considering that it is necessary to maintain the registered attributes of the ports of all switches, the port of each switch that has been registered may repetitively send the corresponding registration message at regular intervals; if a port on any side of any switch does not receive the repetitively sent registration message within a certain period of time, it means that the link might have failed, and the attribute that has been registered on the port on said side of said switch will be deregistered, so as to avoid the case where the port attribute cannot be deregistered owing to the link failure, thereby improving reliability in port attribute configuration to correspond to the claimed limitation].
Paulchamy and Guo are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of data storage management.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Paulchamy and Guo before him or her, to modify the method of Paulchamy to include the determination of subsets of Guo because it will enhance system performance.
The motivation for doing so would be [“ improving reliability in port attribute configuration” (Paragraph 0058 by Guo)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Paulchamy and Guo to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As for dependent claims 13 and 18, the applicant is directed to the rejections to claim 4 set forth above, as they are rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 5, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being disclosed by Paulchamy, as applied to claim 1, in view of Sumedrea et al. (US PGPUB 2025/0023893 hereinafter referred to as Sumedrea) and further in view of Proulx et al. (US 11,194,506 hereinafter referred to as Proulx).
As per dependent claim 5, Paulchamy discloses the computing device according to claim 1.
Paulchamy does not appear to explicitly disclose identify the plurality of storage devices based on a scan for each storage device that has an active port on the storage network; issue a query request to the central controller to identify the first subset; and determine the second subset by subtracting the identified first subset from the plurality of storage devices.
However, Sumedrea discloses identify the plurality of storage devices based on a scan for each storage device that has an active port on the storage network; issue a query request to the central controller to identify the first subset [(Paragraphs 0020, 0031 and 0051) wherein the TEM agent 108 generates, based on the plurality of device descriptions, a status report that includes a list of network addresses that are associated with a group of devices that have access to the client device 101a. The TEM agent 108 may generate a status report that excludes the client devices 101 that once had access to the client device 101a, but no longer does at the time of generating the status report. For example, the TEM agent 108 generates the status report by identifying, based on the port scanning results, one or more offline devices that are associated with one or more responses of the plurality of responses. The TEM agent 108 excludes one or more network addresses of the one or more offline devices from the list of network addresses to correspond to the claimed limitation].
Paulchamy and Sumedrea are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of data storage management.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Paulchamy and Sumedrea before him or her, to modify the method of Paulchamy to include the port scanning operations of Sumedrea because it will enhance system performance.
The motivation for doing so would be [“identify exposures of assets, such as computing devices, on computing networks to actual and/or potential threats” (Paragraph 0002 by Sumedrea)].
Paulchamy does not appear to explicitly disclose determine the second subset by subtracting the identified first subset from the plurality of storage devices.
However, Proulx discloses determine the second subset by subtracting the identified first subset from the plurality of storage devices [(Column 16, lines 49-60) wherein the first subset of data includes an active data set, and the second subset of data includes a snapshot. Accordingly, the unique data module 326 may compute the set difference based on the combined efficiency set and the one or more efficiency sets, where a result of the set difference is an efficiency set corresponding to the unique data blocks {C, D, E} (e.g., {A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H}−{A, B, H, G, F}={C, D, E}). The result set difference may include the second group of unmasked block identifiers subtracted from the first group of masked block identifiers discussed above in relation to data blocks {A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H} and data blocks {A, B, H, G, F} to correspond to the claimed limitation].
Paulchamy and Proulx are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of data storage management.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Paulchamy and Proulx before him or her, to modify the method of Paulchamy to include the determination of subsets of Proulx because it will enhance system performance.
The motivation for doing so would be [“improving memory usage information in a distributed storage system for improved user experience” (Column 1, lines 9-11 by Proulx)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Paulchamy and Proulx to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As for dependent claims 14 and 19, the applicant is directed to the rejections to claim 5 set forth above, as they are rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED M GEBRILohamed Gebril whose telephone number is (571)270-1857 and email address is mohamed.gebril @uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9-5 ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jared Rutz can be reached on 571-272-5535. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2857.
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.
/MOHAMED M GEBRIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2135