DETAILED ACTION
1. The communication is in response to the application received 12/18/2024, wherein claims 22-38 are pending and are examined as follows. Note that claims 1-21 were previously canceled. The instant application is a continuation of 18/187,272 (now U.S. Patent No. 12,219,164), which is a continuation of 16/555,458 (now U.S. Patent No. 11,647,217).
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 12/18/2024 and 01/06/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 22, 23, 28-30, and 35-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,219,164 B2 in view of Joliveau et al. US 10,277,669 B1, hereinafter referred to as 164 and Joliveau, respectively. Considering Joliveau’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of 164, to provide the techniques of Joliveau for implementing communication channels between a content distribution network (CDN) and client devices that enables the CDN to more efficiently deliver media content to consumers (col. 1 lines 55-58). Obviousness rationale is provided below. Please refer to table 1 below which illustrates the mapping between the claim sets.
Claims 25-26 and 32-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of 164 in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,647,217 B2, hereinafter referred to as 164 and 217, respectively. Considering the teachings in 217, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of 164, to include the techniques in 217 for overcoming the risk of increasing a load on a network through which data is transmitted (col. 1 lines 29-36); hence, processing loads on a system can be controlled. Obviousness rationale is provided below. Please refer to table 1 below which illustrates the mapping between the claim sets.
Claims 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, and 33-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,936,925 B2, hereinafter referred to as 925. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim sets are directed to a server device that can receive both first and second data from a transmission device which can be subsequently stored in temporary storage and then later stored in storage. As such, the claims of 925 anticipate those in the Instant Application.
Table 1
**Note: The items below that are BOLD/UNDERLINED in the Instant Application/Patented claims, respectively, indicate differences in the claim limitation.
Instant Application 18/985,366
US Patent No. 12,219,164 B2
Claim 22
A server device comprising: one or more processors configured to: receive first data as part of a plurality of pieces of transmission data, from a transmission device; and receive, in accordance with a request for transmission of second data that is data other than the first data among the plurality of pieces of transmission data, the second data transmitted from the transmission device; and a temporary storage configured to temporarily store therein the first data and the second data that are received; wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: read the first data and the second data stored in the temporary storage; and write, into a storage, the first data and the second data that are read from the temporary storage.
Claim 1
A server device comprising: one or more processors configured to: receive first data as part of a plurality of pieces of transmission data, from a transmission device; distribute the first data to a reception device; receive, in accordance with a request for transmission of second data that is data other than the first data among the plurality of pieces of transmission data, the second data transmitted from the transmission device; distribute the second data to the reception device; and delete all or part of target data that is at least one of the first data and the second data stored in a storage, in accordance with a predetermined condition, the storage storing therein the first data and the second data transmitted from the transmission device, wherein the target data includes first pictures and second pictures, and the one or more processors delete part of the second pictures included in the target data every time a predetermined time elapses.
Claim 23
The server device according to claim 22, further comprising the storage.
Claim 7
The server device according to claim 1, further comprising the storage.
Claim 24
The server device according to claim 22, wherein the storage is included in another server device.
Not in 164 or 217
Claim 25
The server device according to claim 22, wherein the transmission data is moving image data, and the first data includes image data encoded by intra-frame prediction.
Not in 164
**See claim 2 of 217
Claim 26
The server device according to claim 25, wherein the second data includes image data encoded by inter-frame prediction based on the first data.
Not in 164
**See claim 2 of 217
Claim 27
The server device according to claim 22, wherein the one or more processors store, in the storage, merge data obtained by merging at least part of the first data and the second data stored in the temporary storage.
Not in 164 or 217
Claim 28
The server device according to claim 22, wherein the one or more processors delete at least one of the first data and the second data stored in the storage, in accordance with a predetermined condition.
Claim 1
“…and delete all or part of target data that is at least one of the first data and the second data stored in a storage, in accordance with a predetermined condition”
**Also see claim 10 of 217
Claim 29
Similar to instant claim 22
See claim 1 of 164
Claim 30
Similar to instant claim 23
See claim 7 of 164
Claim 31
Similar to instant claim 24
Not in 164 or 217
Claim 32
Similar to instant claim 25
Not in 164
**See claim 2 of 217
Claim 33
Similar to instant claim 26
Not in 164
**See claim 2 of 217
Claim 34
The server device according to claim 29, wherein the storage stores merge data obtained by merging at least part of the first data and the second data stored in the temporary storage; and the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, from the reception device, a request for transmission of the first data or the second data, the request including specification information for specifying a position of the first data or the second data in the merge data, and distribute, to the reception device, the first data or the second data read from the storage based on the specification information.
Not in 164 or 217
Claim 35
Similar to instant claim 22
See claim 1 of 164
Claim 36
Similar to instant claim 22
See claim 1 of 164
Claim 37
Similar to instant claim 22
See claim 1 of 164
Claim 38
Similar to instant claim 22
See claim 1 of 164
Obviousness Rationale:
Regarding claim 22, claim 1 of 164 provides support for all of the limitation with the exception of a “temporary storage”. Specifically “and a temporary storage configured to temporarily store therein the first data and the second data that are received; wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: read the first data and the second data stored in the temporary storage”. However, Joliveau from the same or similar field of endeavor is found to teach and/or suggest these features. Regarding “and a temporary storage configured to temporarily store therein the first data and the second data that are received”, see col. 7 lines 1-7, where both pre-cached and retrieved fragments are stored in cache 130 (i.e. temporary storage) of edge server 126. As to “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: read the first data and the second data stored in the temporary storage”, given the BRI, the data stored in cache 130 can be subsequently retrieved (i.e. read-out) and made available to the client device for playback within the CDN. It would have therefore been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of 164, to provide the techniques of Joliveau for implementing communication channels between a content distribution network (CDN) and client devices that enables the CDN to more efficiently deliver media content to consumers (col. 1 lines 55-58).
Regarding claims 35-38, claims 35-38 recite similar limitation as claim 22 above. As such the work of Joliveau from the same or similar field of endeavor is found to teach and/or suggest these features. The motivation is the same as that presented for claim 22.
Regarding claims 25-26 and 31-32, these claims recite limitations that are not found in 164. However, they do find support in claim 2 of 217. It would have therefore been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of 164, to include the techniques in 217 for overcoming the risk of increasing a load on a network through which data is transmitted (col. 1 lines 29-36); hence, processing loads on a system can be controlled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
Claims 29-34 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.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 recites “and distribute, when the temporary storage does not store the first data, the first data stored into a storage to the reception device, the storage being configured to store the first data and the second data that are read from the temporary storage.” (Emphasis added). It is not clear how the first data can be read from the temporary storage, when the first data was previously shown not to be stored in the temporary storage. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be explicitly ascertained.
Regarding claims 30-34, claims 30-34 depend on claim 29 and therefore include all of the features recited therein. For this reason, claims 30-34 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(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 22, 24, 29, 31, and 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Joliveau et al. US 10,277,669 B1, hereinafter referred to as Joliveau, where Joliveau describes techniques for implementing communication channels between a client device and a content distribution network (CDN). Please see below for details.
Regarding claim 22, (New) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Joliveau teaches and/or suggests “A server device comprising: one or more processors [See for e.g. col. 6 lines 33-67 and col. 7 lines 1-7 regarding edge server 125 (figs. 1-2) in content delivery network (CDN) 110), where said edge server is a media server (col. 10 lines 38-40] configured to: receive first data as part of a plurality of pieces of transmission data, from a transmission device [Caching logic of edge server 125 may pre-cache fragments of media content (e.g. 1st data) in anticipation that those fragments will be later requested (e.g. col. 8 lines 29-35)]; and receive, in accordance with a request for transmission of second data that is data other than the first data among the plurality of pieces of transmission data, the second data transmitted from the transmission device [See for e.g. col. 3 lines 37-45. If edge server 125 does not have a client’s ‘requested’ fragment (e.g. 2nd data) in its CDN cache (130), a copy is retrieved from origin server 126 (col. 2 lines 37-41). Communications between servers in the CDN (col. 6 lines 33-63) suggest origin server 126 and edge server 125 can behave as transmission and reception devices, respectively]; and a temporary storage configured to temporarily store therein the first data and the second data that are received [The foregoing fragments (those that are pre-cached and those that are retrieved) are stored in cache 130 (i.e. temporary storage) of said edge server 126. See col. 7 lines 1-7.]; wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: read the first data and the second data stored in the temporary storage [The data stored in cache 130 (see above) can be subsequently retrieved (i.e. read-out) and made available to the client device for playback within the CDN]; and write, into a storage, the first data and the second data that are read from the temporary storage.” [Given the BRI, the retrieved data can be written into storage/memory of a content service (202) platform implemented by one or more servers (col. 5 lines 50-60 with reference to fig. 5) for subsequent routing to a client(s) device (e.g. device 300 – fig. 3). Said storage can also be construed as storage/memory in said client(s) device]
Regarding claim 24, (New) Joliveau teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 22 and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Joliveau further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the storage is included in another server device.” [The retrieved data can be written into storage/memory of a content service (202) platform implemented by one or more servers (col. 5 lines 50-60 with reference to fig. 5) for subsequent routing to a client(s) device (e.g. device 300 – fig. 3).]
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 22. As to distributing first data stored in temporary storage to a reception device, see for e.g. figs. 1-2 with respect to sending pre-cached fragments in the server to a client device. Regarding “and distribute, when the temporary storage does not store the first data [This can pertain to when a fragment is not contained in cache 130 of edge server 125 (e.g. col. 4 lines 19-21)], the first data stored into a storage to the reception device [If said fragment is not in cache 130, it can be sent to the client device from the origin server, although the retrieval time may be longer due to the hierarchy in the CDN (col. 4 lines 40-55)], the storage being configured to store the first data and the second data that are read from the temporary storage.” [See claim 22]
Regarding claim 31, claim 31 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 24.
Regarding claim 35, claim 36 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 22.
Regarding claim 36, claim 36 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 22. As to the claimed hardware/software, see col. 6 lines 19-67 of Joliveau.
Regarding claim 37, claim 37 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 22.
Regarding claim 38, claim 38 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 22. As to the claimed hardware/software, see col. 6 lines 19-67 of Joliveau.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joliveau, in view of Ellard et al. US 8,489,820 B1, hereinafter referred to as Ellard.
Regarding claim 23, (New) Joliveau teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 22 and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Joliveau further teaches and/or suggests “further comprising the storage.” [Joliveau shows the CDN can include a plurality of servers, including edge servers and origin servers, deployed in multiple data centers across a network. Given the BRI of “the storage”, the retrieval of data fragments from one server can be written into memory/storage of another server in said network (col. 6 lines 33-67)] Although Joliveau suggests data can be moved between servers in a network, there does not appear to be any indication that the data transfer exists within the same server. As such, the work of Ellard from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “further comprising the storage” when found in the same server as the cache. [See abstract. Storage server 2 (fig. 1) contains a main buffer cache 6 which can transfer data to a secondary cache (i.e. storage in the form of solid state memory – e.g. col. 3 lines 7-13). Although said secondary cache is shown to be external to said server, it can also be a part of said server as depicted in fig. 5 and as described in col. 8 lines 64-67 and col. 9 lines 1-6.] Considering Ellard’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content distribution system of Joliveau (e.g. abstract), to add the teachings of Ellard as above to include low-cost solid state memory to help improve network storage server performance (e.g. col. 9 lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 23.
Claims 25-26 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joliveau, in view of Van Brandenburg et al. US 2020/0204841 A1, hereinafter referred to as Van Brandenburg.
Regarding claim 25, (New) Joliveau teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 22 and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although Joliveau teaches different fragments of video data (e.g. fig. 1), Joliveau does not appear to address the features of claim 25. Van Brandenburg on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brough in to further teach and/or suggest “wherein the transmission data is moving image data [Van Brandenburg describes streaming frames of spatial elements of a video to a client device (e.g. abstract)], and the first data includes image data encoded by intra-frame prediction.” [The abstract further shows a first high resolution spatial-element frame is not inter-coded (i.e. is an intra coded I-frame). Please see for e.g. figs. 8-9] Given Van Brandenburg’s teachings for streaming frames of spatial elements to a client device, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content distribution system of Joliveau (e.g. abstract), to add the teachings of Van Brandenburg as above to facilitate receiving high-resolution spatial element frames at a client device fast enough to achieve a low motion-to-high-res latency (e.g. ¶0018).
Regarding claim 26, (New) Joliveau teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 25 and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Joliveau does not appear to address the features of claim 26. Van Brandenburg on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brough in to further teach and/or suggest “wherein the second data includes image data encoded by inter-frame prediction based on the first data.” [See for e.g. ¶0101 with respect to two or more temporal segments of spatial-element frames comprising inter-coded spatial-element frames (e.g. P and B frames)] The motivation for combining Joliveau and Van Brandenburg has been discussed in connection with claim 25, above.
Regarding claim 32, claim 32 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 25.
Regarding claim 33, claim 33 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 26.
Claims 27 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joliveau, in view of Katagiri et al. US 2018/0275921 A1, hereinafter referred to as Katagiri.
Regarding claim 27, (New) Joliveau teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 22 and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Joliveau does not appear to address the features of claim 27. Katagiri on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brough in to further teach and/or suggest “wherein the one or more processors store, in the storage, merge data obtained by merging at least part of the first data and the second data stored in the temporary storage.” [See for e.g. ¶0129, where data can be merged in a buffer and then stored in NAND memory] Given the BRI of the claim and recognizing Katagiri’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content distribution system of Joliveau (e.g. abstract), to add the teachings of Katagiri as above to help overcome performance degradation issues in a storage device due to the increase in read time of data in memory cells and the increase in program time of data into memory cells (e.g. ¶0003).
Regarding claim 34, claim 34 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of Claim 27.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joliveau, in view of Abe et al. US 2016/0261873 A1, hereinafter referred to as Abe.
Regarding claim 28, (New) Joliveau teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 22 and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Joliveau does not appear to address the features of claim 28. Abe on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brough in to further teach and/or suggest “wherein the one or more processors delete at least one of the first data and the second data stored in the storage, in accordance with a predetermined condition.” [See for e.g. ¶0049-¶0050. A STRP (construed as 1st or 2nd data) can be deleted ‘after a predetermined period of time passes’] Given the BRI and considering Abe’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the content distribution system of Joliveau (e.g. abstract), to add the teachings of Abe as above to provide a means for more efficiently coding moving images (e.g. ¶0008-¶0009).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 pm.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486