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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “one of one of more” should be corrected to “one of one or more”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,606,675. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
Reference Document (15/809907)
A method comprising:
A system for monitoring job execution, comprising: … a processor configured to: …
receiving an indication that processing of a task has been terminated,
…determine whether processing a data instance of the plurality of data instances satisfies a watchdog criterion; and in the event that processing the data instance satisfies the watchdog criterion: cause the processing of the data instance to be killed…
wherein the task is one of one or more tasks of a cluster processing job;
…a cluster processing job…
incrementing a counter value, the counter value indicative of a total number of tasks associated with the cluster processing job that have been terminated; and
…increment a killed data instance counter…
automatically terminating execution of the cluster processing job responsive to the counter value meeting a threshold value.
determine whether the killed data instance counter satisfies a job killing threshold; and in response to a determination that the killed data instance counter satisfies the job killing threshold, cause processing of the cluster processing job to be killed.
The method of claim 1, wherein the cluster processing job is a query to process data stored in a data storage system.
…divide the cluster processing job into a plurality of data instances; determine whether processing a data instance of the plurality of data instances…
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that a period of time that the task associated with the cluster processing job has been processing meets a threshold period of time; and
terminating the task associated with the cluster processing job in response to determining that the period of time meets the threshold period of time.
The system of claim 1, wherein the watchdog criterion comprises a time limit exceeded for processing the data.
The method of claim 1, further comprising: storing, in an output file, an indication that the cluster processing job has been terminated.
13. The system of claim 1…
15. The system of claim 13, wherein the processor is further configured to store an indication in an output file that processing of the data instance was caused to be killed.
Claims 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,606,675, in view of known techniques for performing computer methods. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 8, 9, 12, and 13 recite “systems containing one or more computer processors; and one or more computer readable mediums storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the system to” perform a process, but otherwise recite similar language to claims 1, 2, 5, and 6. The claims of the reference document do not explicitly recite the claimed processors. Examiner takes official notice that it is well known that computer methods are performed by executing instructions stored in a computer readable medium by a processor. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the claimed computer methods in such a manner.
Claims 15, 16, 19, and 20 recite “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising stored instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by one or more computer processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to” perform a process, but otherwise recite similar language to claims 1, 2, 5, and 6. The claims of the reference document do not explicitly recite the claimed medium. Examiner takes official notice that it is well known that computer methods are performed by executing instructions stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium by a processor. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the claimed computer methods in such a manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, the specification does not appear to describe the claimed steps taken with respect to a “previous” task or “earlier version” of the counter value. Although the determination that a task has been terminated, the incrementing of the counter value, and determining that the counter value does not meet the threshold value are all described in paragraphs 0020 and 0021, they are not performed relative to a specific “previous” task or “earlier version” of the counter value.
In addition, even if the claims are interpreted broadly such that “previous” and “earlier” refer to any point in the past, the specification does not appear to teach “causing the previous task associated with the cluster processing job to be restarted in response to determining that the earlier version of the counter value is below the threshold value”. The specification describes continuing processing if the threshold is not met, but does not appear to describe restarting a task in response to the specific determination that an earlier version of the counter value did not meet the threshold value.
Claims 11 and 18 recite similar language to claim 4, and are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Below is an evaluation using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claim 1
Step 1:
Claim 1 is to a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 1 recites
receiving an indication that processing of a task has been terminated
incrementing a counter value, the counter indicative of a total number of tasks … that have been terminated
automatically terminating execution … responsive to the counter value meeting a threshold value
which are abstract ideas of mental processes that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Processing a task is recited at a high level, and may include a mental task performed in the human mind. Incrementing a value and determining if it reaches a threshold value can also be performed in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 1 recites
wherein the task is one of one of more tasks of a cluster processing job
… associated with the cluster processing job …
… of the cluster processing job …
which are additional elements that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 1 recites
wherein the task is one of one of more tasks of a cluster processing job
… associated with the cluster processing job …
… of the cluster processing job …
which are additional elements that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 2
Step 1:
Claim 2 is to a process
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 2 recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1 by dependency.
Claim 2 recites
a query to process data stored in a data storage system
which is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Processing data, when recited at a high level, can be performed in the human mind. The recited data storage system does not prevent the data from being processed in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 2 recites
wherein the cluster processing job is
which is a continuation of the additional element of claim 1 that generally links the judicial exception to the technological environment of cluster processing.
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 2 recites
wherein the cluster processing job is
which is a continuation of the additional element of claim 1 that generally links the judicial exception to the technological environment of cluster processing.
Claim 3
Step 1:
Claim 3 is to a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 3 recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1 by dependency.
Claim 3 recites
wherein the threshold value is greater than 0
which is a continuation of the threshold abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 3 does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 3 does not recite additional elements.
Claim 4
Step 1:
Claim 4 is to a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 4 recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1 by dependency.
Claim 4 recites
determining that a previous task … has been terminated
incrementing an earlier version of the counter value indicating the total number of tasks … that have been terminated
determining that the earlier version of the counter value does not meet the threshold value; and
which are continuations of the mental process abstract ideas of claim 1.
Claim 4 further recites
causing the previous task … to be restarted in response to determining that the earlier version of the counter value is below the threshold value.
which is the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Similarly to how stopping a process can be performed in the human mind, restarting it can also be performed in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 4 recites
associated with the cluster processing job
which is a continuation of the additional element of claim 1 that generally links the judicial exception to the technological environment of cluster processing, three times.
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 4 recites
associated with the cluster processing job
which is a continuation of the additional element of claim 1 that generally links the judicial exception to the technological environment of cluster processing, three times.
Claim 5
Step 1:
Claim 5 is to a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 5 recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1 by dependency.
Claim 5 recites
determining that a period of time that the task … has been processing meets a threshold period of time
terminating the task … in response to determining that the period of time meets the threshold period of time
which are abstract ideas of mental processes that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). It is possible to keep track of time in the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 5 recites
associated with the cluster processing job
which is a continuation of the additional element of claim 1 that generally links the judicial exception to the technological environment of cluster processing, twice.
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 5 recites
associated with the cluster processing job
which is a continuation of the additional element of claim 1 that generally links the judicial exception to the technological environment of cluster processing, twice.
Claim 6
Step 1:
Claim 6 is to a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 6 recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1 by dependency.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 6 recites
storing, in an output file, an indication that the cluster processing job has been terminated
which is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). The additional element amounts to necessary outputting of data.
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 6 recites
storing, in an output file, an indication that the cluster processing job has been terminated
which is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional element amounts to necessary outputting of data.
Furthermore the additional element is directed to electronic recordkeeping and storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Claim 7
Step 1:
Claim 7 is to a method.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claim 7 recites the abstract ideas of Claim 6 by dependency.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 7 recites
storing, in the output file, an indication of the task associated with the cluster processing job that has been terminated and the counter value.
which is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g). The additional element amounts to necessary outputting of data. The information stored in the output file is noted to be insignificant or part of an abstract idea as noted in the rejections of the other claims.
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 7 recites
storing, in the output file, an indication of the task associated with the cluster processing job that has been terminated and the counter value.
which is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional element amounts to necessary outputting of data. The information stored in the output file is noted to be insignificant or part of an abstract idea as noted in the rejections of the other claims.
Furthermore the additional element is directed to electronic recordkeeping and storing and retrieving information in memory, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Claims 8 – 14
Step 1:
Claims 8 – 14 are to a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claims 8 – 14 recite similar language to claims 1 – 7, and recite similar abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 8 recites
one or more computer processors; and
one or more computer readable mediums storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the system to:
which are additional elements that amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Claims 8 – 14 otherwise recite similar language to claims 1 – 7, and similarly do not recite elements that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 8 recites
one or more computer processors; and
one or more computer readable mediums storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the system to:
which are additional elements that amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Claims 8 – 14 otherwise recite similar language to claims 1 – 7, and similarly do not recite elements that amount to significantly more.
Claims 15 – 20
Step 1:
Claims 15 – 20 are to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract Idea
Claims 15 – 20 recite similar language to claims 1 – 7, and recite similar abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 15 recites
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising stored instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by one or more computer processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to:
which is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(f)(2).
Claims 15 – 20 otherwise recite similar language to claims 1 – 7, and similarly do not recite elements that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B: Significantly more
Claim 15 recites
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising stored instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by one or more computer processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to:
which is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2).
Claims 15 – 20 otherwise recite similar language to claims 1 – 7, and similarly do not recite elements that amount to significantly more.
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 (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)(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.
Claims 1 – 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (NPL, Failures in Classic MapReduce).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a method comprising:
receiving an indication that processing of a task has been terminated, wherein the task is one of one or more tasks of a cluster processing job (Task Failure, where the child task of a MapReduce task is marked as failing);
incrementing a counter value, the counter value indicative of a total number of tasks associated with the cluster processing job that have been terminated (Page 2, second-to-final paragraph, a maximum percentage of tasks in the job are allowed to fail before the job fails; Tracking this percentage would necessarily require some way to count the number of tasks that have failed); and
automatically terminating execution of the cluster processing job responsive to the counter value meeting a threshold value (The maximum percentage of tasks before the job fails).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the cluster processing job is a query to process data stored in a data storage system (The job is a MapReduce job).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the threshold value is greater than 0 (Page 2, second-to-final paragraph, it is undesirable to abort the job if “a few tasks fail”. The threshold is at least “a few” which is greater than 0).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that a period of time that the task associated with the cluster processing job has been processing meets a threshold period of time (Page 2 first paragraph, the 10 minute timeout period for a task); and
terminating the task associated with the cluster processing job in response to determining that the period of time meets the threshold period of time (Page 2 first paragraph, the child task is killed after the timeout period).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8 – 10, 12, 15 – 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of known techniques for performing computer methods.
Claims 8, 9, 10 and 12 recite “systems containing one or more computer processors; and one or more computer readable mediums storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the system to” perform a process, but otherwise recite similar language to claims 1, 2, 3, and 5. Examiner takes official notice that it is well known that computer methods are performed by executing instructions stored in a computer readable medium by a processor. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the claimed computer methods in such a manner.
Claims 15, 16, 17 and 19 recite “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising stored instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by one or more computer processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to” perform a process, but otherwise recite similar language to claims 1, 2, 3, and 5. Examiner takes official notice that it is well known that computer methods are performed by executing instructions stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium by a processor. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the claimed computer methods in such a manner.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of a Cloudera Community post by user arkaprova (NPL), hereinafter Cloudera.
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the method of claim 1.
Kim does not explicitly teach storing, in an output file, an indication that the cluster processing job has been terminated.
Kim does, however, teach storing, in an output file, an indication that the task that is part of the cluster processing job has been terminated (Task Failure paragraph 1, the error in a child task makes it into the user logs).
Cloudera teaches that MapReduce logs contain an indication that the cluster processing job has been terminated (Page 3, the log notes “Job failed as tasks failed”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the logs described in Kim would include the information shown in the logs posted to Cloudera. It would be obvious because both are describing use of the same Hadoop MapReduce system, and the logs are part of said system. It would be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that logs stored by MapReduce, regardless of user, would be likely to include the information posted to Cloudera.
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Cloudera teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising:
storing in the output file, an indication of the task associated with the cluster processing job that has been terminated and the counter value (Cloudera page 3, the logs note a job counter for “Failed map tasks”).
Claims 13, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of known techniques for performing computer methods as applied to claims 8 – 10, 12, 15 – 17 and 19 above, further in view of Cloudera.
Claim 13 recites similar language to claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 14 recites similar language to claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 20 recites similar language to claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN PAI SONG HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0510. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:30 AM - 8:30 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, ASHISH THOMAS can be reached at (571) 272-0631. 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.
/B.P.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/ASHISH THOMAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114