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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/9/2025 is being
considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Independent Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,110. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both of the inventions are about storage system comprising SSD with logical address divided into allocation units where available allocation units are managed or monitored.
Claim 1 of instant application
Claim 1 of US 12,236,110
A method comprising
A storage system comprising
providing a plurality of storage devices, wherein each storage device of the plurality of storage devices comprises a solid-state drive (SSD) storage portion having a logical address space of a namespace divided into allocation units
a plurality of storage devices, wherein each storage device of the plurality of storage devices comprises a solid-state drive (SSD) storage portion having a logical address space of a namespace divided into allocation units
a storage controller, operatively coupled to the plurality of zoned storage devices, the storage controller configured to
monitoring available allocation units across corresponding SSD storage portions of the plurality of storage devices
Maintain a data structure indicating a plurality of available allocation units across corresponding SSD storage portions of the plurality of storage devices
receiving data from a plurality of sources that is associated with processing a dataset comprising multiple segments;
receive data from a plurality of sources that is associated with processing a dataset comprising multiple segments
map the plurality of shards to a subset of the plurality of available zones, respectively;
and writing a plurality of shards of the data to a subset of the plurality of available allocation units of the storage devices in parallel.
and write the plurality of shards of the data to a subset of the plurality of available allocation units of the storage devices in parallel.
Claim 1 of US 12,236,110 have additional limitations. The limitation of claim 1 of instant application has been broadened without the limitation “map the plurality of shards to a subset of the plurality of available zones, respectively” of claim 1 of US 12,236,110. The limitation of claim 1 of US 12,236,110 “a storage controller, operatively coupled to the plurality of zoned storage devices, the storage controller configured to” is taught in in claim 8. Claim 1 of US 12,236,110 teaches “a storage system” wherein instant application teaches “a method of storage devices” which is only wording difference between claims. Also, US 12,236,110 teaches “Maintain a data structure indicating a plurality of available allocation units” wherein instant application teaches “monitoring available allocation units” which is only wording difference between claims essentially doing same function, therefore the claims are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,110.
Claim 2 of instant application
Claim 2 of US 12,236,110
The method of claim 1, further comprising: writing an erasure code that corresponds to the data to a subset of the available allocation units.
The storage system of claim 1, wherein the storage controller is further configured to: write an erasure code that corresponds to the data to a subset of the available allocation units.
Claim 2 of the instant application is dependent on Claims 1, therefore teaches all limitations of Claims 1. Claim 2 of US 12,236,110 is dependent on Claim 1, therefore teaches all limitations of Claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,110.
Claim 3 of instant application
Claim 3 of US 12,236,110
The method of claim 1, wherein the erasure code comprises a first portion and a second portion, and wherein writing the erasure code further comprises: writing the first portion to a first allocation unit of the subset of the available allocation units and the second portion to a second allocation unit of the subset of the available allocation units in parallel with the first portion.
The storage system of claim 2, wherein the erasure code comprises a first portion and a second portion, and wherein to write the erasure code the storage controller is further configured to: write the first portion to a first allocation unit of the available allocation units and the second portion to a second allocation unit of the available allocation units in parallel with the first portion.
Claim 3 of the instant application is dependent on Claims 1, therefore teaches all limitations of Claims 1. Claim 3 of US 12,236,110 is dependent on Claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1, therefore teaches all limitations of Claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,110.
Claim 4 of instant application
Claim 4 of US 12,236,110
The method of claim 1, wherein the SSD storage portion of each storage device of the plurality of storage devices comprises a direct-mapped SSD storage portion, wherein the direct-mapped SSD storage portion avoids SSD controller translation.
The storage system of claim 1, wherein the SSD storage portion of each storage device of the plurality of storage devices comprises a direct- mapped SSD storage portion.
Claim 2 of the instant application is dependent on Claims 1, therefore teaches all limitations of Claims 1. Claim 4 of US 12,236,110 is dependent on Claim 1, therefore teaches all limitations of Claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,110.
Claim 5 of instant application
Claim 5 of US 12,236,110
The method of claim 4, wherein the direct-mapped SSD storage portion has erase blocks mapped as directly addressable storage of the SSD, and wherein two of the erase blocks of the direct-mapped SSD storage portion have differing sizes.
The storage system of claim 4, wherein the direct-mapped SSD storage portion has erase blocks mapped as directly addressable storage of the SSD.
Claim 5 of the instant application is dependent on Claims 4 which is dependent on claim 1, therefore teaches all limitations of Claims 1. Claim 5 of US 12,236,110 is dependent on Claim 4 which is dependent on claim 1, therefore teaches all limitations of Claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,110.
Claim 6 of instant application
Claim 6 of US 12,236,110
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of storage devices further comprise a non-volatile random-access memory (NVRAM) portion to journal the data, and wherein the SSD portion and the NVRAM portion are separately addressable.
The storage system of claim 1, further comprising a non- volatile random-access memory (NVRAM) portion to journal the data, wherein the SSD portion and the NVRAM portion are separately addressable, and wherein the NVRAM portion is smaller than the SSD portion.
Claim 6 of the instant application is dependent on Claims 1, therefore teaches all limitations of Claims 1. Claim 6 of US 12,236,110 is dependent on Claim 1, therefore teaches all limitations of Claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,110.
Claim 7 of instant application
Claim 7 of US 12,236,110
The method of claim 6, wherein the NVRAM portion comprises a random access memory (RAM) device, a stored energy device, and a processing device.
The storage system of claim 6, wherein the NVRAM portion comprises a random access memory (RAM) device, a stored energy device, and a processing device.
Claim 7 of the instant application is dependent on Claims 6 which is dependent on claim 1, therefore teaches all limitations of Claims 1. Claim 7 of US 12,236,110 is dependent on Claim 6 which is dependent on claim 1, therefore teaches all limitations of Claim 1.
Independent Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,110. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both of the inventions are about storage system comprising SSD with logical address divided into allocation units where available allocation units are managed or monitored.
Claim 8 of instant application
Claim 8 of US 12,236,110
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions which, when executed by a processing device of a storage controller, cause the processing device to:
A method comprising: providing a plurality of storage devices,
wherein each storage device of the plurality of storage devices comprises a solid-state drive (SSD) storage portion having a logical address space of a namespace divided into allocation units;
monitor available allocation units across corresponding SSD storage portions of the plurality of storage devices;
maintaining a data structure indicating a plurality of available allocation units across corresponding SSD storage portions of the plurality of storage devices;
receive data from a plurality of sources that is associated with processing a dataset comprising multiple segments;
receiving data from a plurality of sources that is associated with processing a dataset comprising multiple segments;
mapping a plurality of shards of the data that are capable of being written in parallel to a subset of the plurality of available allocation units;
and write a plurality of shards of the data to a subset of the plurality of available allocation units of the storage devices in parallel.
and writing the plurality of shards to the subset of the plurality of available allocation units of the storage devices in parallel.
Claim 8 of US 12,236,110 have additional limitations. The limitation of claim 8 of instant application has been broadened without the limitation “mapping a plurality of shards of the data that are capable of being written in parallel to a subset of the plurality of available allocation units” of claim 8 of US 12,236,110. The limitation of claim 8 of US 12,236,110 “wherein each storage device of the plurality of storage devices comprises a solid-state drive (SSD) storage portion having a logical address space of a namespace divided into allocation units;” is taught in in claim 14. Claim 8 of US 12,236,110 teaches “A method comprising: providing a plurality of storage devices” wherein instant application teaches “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions” which is only wording difference between claims. Also, US 12,236,110 teaches “maintaining a data structure indicating a plurality of available allocation units across corresponding SSD storage portions of the plurality of storage devices” wherein instant application teaches “monitor available allocation units across corresponding SSD storage portions of the plurality of storage devices” which is only wording difference between claims essentially doing same function, therefore the claims are not patentably distinct from each other. Also, claim 14 of US 12,236,110 teaches random access memory and a processing device similar to claim 8 of instant application limitation having processing device executing instruction in RAM.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,110.
Claim 9 of instant application
Claim 9 of US 12,236,110
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, wherein the processing device is further configured to: write an erasure code that corresponds to the data to a subset of the available allocation units.
The method of claim 8, further comprising: writing an erasure code that corresponds to the data to a subset of the available allocation units.
Claim 9 of the instant application is dependent on Claims 8, therefore teaches all limitations of Claims 8. Claim 9 of US 12,236,110 is dependent on Claim 8, therefore teaches all limitations of Claim 8.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,110.
Claim 10 of instant application
Claim 10 of US 12,236,110
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 9, wherein the erasure code comprises a first portion and a second portion, and wherein the processing device is further configured to: write the first portion to a first allocation unit of the subset of the available allocation units and the second portion to a second allocation unit of the subset of the available allocation units in parallel with the first portion.
The method of claim 9, wherein the erasure code comprises a first portion and a second portion, and wherein writing the erasure code further comprises: writing the first portion to a first allocation unit of the subset of the available allocation units and the second portion to a second allocation unit of the subset of the available allocation units in parallel with the first portion.
Claim 10 of the instant application is dependent on Claims 9 which is dependent on claim 8, therefore teaches all limitations of Claims 8. Claim 10 of US 12,236,110 is dependent on Claim 9 which is dependent on claim 8, therefore teaches all limitations of Claim 8.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,110.
Claim 11 of instant application
Claim 11 of US 12,236,110
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, wherein the SSD storage portion of each storage device of the plurality of storage devices comprises a direct-mapped SSD storage portion, and wherein the direct-mapped SSD storage portion avoids SSD controller translation.
The method of claim 8, wherein the SSD storage portion of each storage device of the plurality of storage devices comprises a direct-mapped SSD storage portion.
Claim 11 of the instant application is dependent on Claims 8, therefore teaches all limitations of Claims 8. Claim 11 of US 12,236,110 is dependent on Claim 8, therefore teaches all limitations of Claim 8.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,110.
Claim 12 of instant application
Claim 12 of US 12,236,110
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein the direct-mapped SSD storage portion has erase blocks mapped as directly addressable storage of the SSD, and wherein two of the erase blocks of the direct-mapped SSD storage portion have differing sizes.
The method of claim 11, wherein the direct-mapped SSD storage portion has erase blocks mapped as directly addressable storage of the SSD.
Claim 12 of the instant application is dependent on Claims 11 which is dependent on claim 8, therefore teaches all limitations of Claims 8. Claim 12 of US 12,236,110 is dependent on Claim 11 which is dependent on claim 8, therefore teaches all limitations of Claim 8.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,110.
Claim 13 of instant application
Claim 13 of US 12,236,110
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 8, further comprising a non-volatile random-access memory (NVRAM) portion to journal the data, wherein the SSD portion and the NVRAM portion are separately addressable.
The method of claim 8, wherein the plurality of zoned storage devices further comprise a non-volatile random-access memory (NVRAM) portion to journal the data, wherein the SSD portion and the NVRAM portion are separately addressable, and wherein the NVRAM portion is smaller than the SSD portion.
Claim 13 of the instant application is dependent on Claims 8, therefore teaches all limitations of Claims 8. Claim 13 of US 12,236,110 is dependent on Claim 8, therefore teaches all limitations of Claim 8.
Independent Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,110. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both of the inventions are about storage system comprising SSD with logical address divided into allocation units where available allocation units are managed or monitored.
Claim 14 of instant application
Claim 15 of US 12,236,110
A storage system comprising: a plurality of storage devices
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions which,
wherein each storage device of the plurality of storage devices comprises a solid-state drive (SSD) storage portion having a logical address space of a namespace divided into allocation units;
and a storage controller, operatively coupled to the plurality of storage devices, the storage controller configured to
when executed by a processing device of a storage controller, cause the processing device to:
monitor available allocation units across corresponding SSD storage portions of the plurality of storage devices;
maintain a data structure indicating a plurality of available allocation units across a plurality of storage devices;
receive data from a plurality of sources that is associated with processing a dataset comprising multiple segments;
receive data from a plurality of sources that is associated with processing a dataset comprising multiple segments;
map a plurality of shards of the data that are capable of being written in parallel to a subset of the plurality of available allocation units;
and write a plurality of shards of the data to a subset of the plurality of available allocation units of the storage devices in parallel.
and write the plurality of shards to the subset of the plurality of available allocation units of the plurality of storage devices in parallel.
Claim 15 of US 12,236,110 have additional limitations. The limitation of claim 8 of instant application has been broadened without the limitation “map a plurality of shards of the data that are capable of being written in parallel to a subset of the plurality of available allocation units” of claim 15 of US 12,236,110. The limitation of claim 14 of instant application “wherein each storage device of the plurality of storage devices comprises a solid-state drive (SSD) storage portion having a logical address space of a namespace divided into allocation units” is taught in claim 1 of US 12,236,110.
Claim 15 of US 12,236,110 teaches “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions which” wherein instant application teaches “A storage system comprising: a plurality of storage devices” which is only wording difference between claims. Also, US 12,236,110 teaches “maintain a data structure indicating a plurality of available allocation units across corresponding SSD storage portions of the plurality of storage devices” wherein instant application teaches “monitor available allocation units across corresponding SSD storage portions of the plurality of storage devices” which is only wording difference between claims essentially doing same function, therefore the claims are not patentably distinct from each other. Also, claim 15 of US 12,236,110 teaches random access memory and a processing device similar to claim 8 of instant application limitation having processing device executing instruction in RAM.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,110.
Claim 15 of instant application
Claim 16 of US 12,236,110
The storage system of claim 14, wherein the storage controller is further configured to: write an erasure code that corresponds to the data to a subset of the available allocation units.
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the processing device is further configured to: write an erasure code that corresponds to the data to a subset of the available allocation units.
Claim 15 of the instant application is dependent on Claims 14, therefore teaches all limitations of Claims 14. Claim 16 of US 12,236,110 is dependent on Claim 15, therefore teaches all limitations of Claim 15.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,110.
Claim 16 of instant application
Claim 17 of US 12,236,110
The storage system of claim 15, wherein the erasure code comprises a first portion and a second portion, and wherein to write the erasure code the storage controller further comprises: write the first portion to a first allocation unit of the available allocation units and the second portion to a second allocation unit of the available allocation units in parallel with the first portion.
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the erasure code comprises a first portion and a second portion, and wherein to write the erasure code the processing device is further configured to: write the first portion to a first allocation unit of the subset of the available allocation units and the second portion to a second allocation unit of the subset of the available allocation units in parallel with the first portion.
Claim 16 of the instant application is dependent on Claims 15 which is dependent on claim 14, therefore teaches all limitations of Claims 14. Claim 17 of US 12,236,110 is dependent on Claim 16 which is dependent on claim 15, therefore teaches all limitations of Claim 15.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,110.
Claim 17 of instant application
Claim 18 of US 12,236,110
The storage system of claim 14, wherein the SSD storage portion of each storage device of the plurality of storage devices comprises a direct-mapped SSD storage portion, and wherein the direct-mapped SSD storage portion avoids SSD controller translation.
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the SSD storage portion of each storage device of the plurality of storage devices comprises a direct-mapped SSD storage portion.
Claim 17 of the instant application is dependent on Claims 14, therefore teaches all limitations of Claims 14. Claim 18 of US 12,236,110 is dependent on Claim 15, therefore teaches all limitations of Claim 15.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,110.
Claim 18 of instant application
Claim 19 of US 12,236,110
The storage system of claim 17, wherein the direct-mapped SSD storage portion has erase blocks mapped as directly addressable storage of the SSD, and wherein two of the erase blocks of the direct-mapped SSD storage portion have differing sizes.
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 18, wherein the direct-mapped SSD storage portion has erase blocks mapped as directly addressable storage of the SSD.
Claim 12 of the instant application is dependent on Claims 11 which is dependent on claim 8, therefore teaches all limitations of Claims 8. Claim 12 of US 12,236,110 is dependent on Claim 11 which is dependent on claim 8, therefore teaches all limitations of Claim 8.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,110.
Claim 19 of instant application
Claim 20 of US 12,236,110
The storage system of claim 14, further comprising a non-volatile random- access memory (NVRAM) portion to journal the data, wherein the SSD portion and the NVRAM portion are separately addressable.
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, further comprising a non-volatile random-access memory (NVRAM) portion to journal the data, wherein the SSD portion and the NVRAM portion are separately addressable, and wherein the NVRAM portion is smaller than the SSD portion.
Claim 19 of the instant application is dependent on Claims 14, therefore teaches all limitations of Claims 14. Claim 20 of US 12,236,110 is dependent on Claim 15, therefore teaches all limitations of Claim 15.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over independent claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,110.
Claim 20 of instant application
Claim 14 of US 12,236,110
The storage system of claim 19, wherein the NVRAM portion comprises a random access memory (RAM) device, a stored energy device, and a processing device.
The method of claim 13, wherein the NVRAM portion comprises a random access memory (RAM) device, a stored energy device, and a processing device.
Claim 20 of the instant application is dependent on Claims 19 which is dependent on claim 14, therefore teaches all limitations of Claims 14. Claim 14 of US 12,236,110 is dependent on Claim 13 which is dependent on claim 8, therefore teaches all limitations of Claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be conditionally allowed given that the outstanding double
patenting rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUBIR K CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (703)756-1207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5:00 CST.
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, Hosain Alam can be reached at (571)-272-3978. 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.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2132
/HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132