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 .
Continuity/reexam data
Parent data
19032908 filed 01/21/2025 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63730076 , filed 12/10/2024
19032908 is a Continuation in Part of 18403002 , filed 01/03/2024 ,now U.S. Patent # 12271381
18403002 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63482485 , filed 01/31/2023
18403002 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63482497 , filed 01/31/2023
18403002 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63482504 , filed 01/31/2023
Child data
None
Foreign data
No foreign data information
(*) - Request to retrieve electronic copy of foreign priority from participating receiving offices.
1. Claims presented for examination: 1-20
Priority
2. No priority was filed.
Drawings
3. Drawing filed on 01/21/2025 was accepted for examination.
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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12/271,381. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application include claim language direct to filter information and mapping table to find linkage. The instant application include metadata table and 381 include parallel nodes for execution of data. Although, the claim language is different but the 381 also disclosed the instant application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in art to modify 381 to arrive the same invention as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
5. Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 9-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaitheeswaran et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0166573 A1) in view of White et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0193296 A1).
As to claim 1, (Original) Vaitheeswaran discloses a data storage system comprising:
at least one processor (processors) (paragraph 0109); and
at least one memory (read-only memory, or a random-access memory or both) (paragraph 0109) storing operational instructions (instruction) (paragraph 0109) that, when executed by the at least one processor (processors) (paragraph 0109), cause the at least one processor (processors) (paragraph 0109) to perform operations that include:
storing a first plurality of files and a second plurality of files in memory resources
of an object storage system of the data storage system, wherein the first plurality of files
store a plurality of records of at least one table (master table) (paragraph 0066), and wherein the second plurality of files
store a set of index structures indexing the plurality of records of the at least one table (the extractor engine 304 can abstract the data items in the data sources into an index structure of the index schema…) (paragraph 0035);
generating table metadata for storage, mapping the first plurality of files and the
second plurality of files to the at least one table, via a metadata processing system of the
data storage system (the mapping tables can enhance a speed with which the business object…) (paragraph 0038);
receiving a request from a data processing system indicating filtering parameter
data to filter the plurality of records in accordance with a data storage communication
protocol (the search engine 350 can generated filtered tuples…) (paragraph 0088);
generating, via the metadata processing system, a filtered row set identifying a
proper subset of the plurality of records meeting the filtering parameter data based on
accessing the table metadata to identify at least one index structure of the set of index
structures, and based on further accessing at least one file of the second plurality of files in
the object storage system storing the at least one index structure (the table include an index document key which matches a unique identifier of a document in index. Using this mapping object engine…) (paragraph 0063); and
Vaitheeswaran does not explicitly disclose sending a response to the data processing system that indicates the filtered row set, where the data processing system generates a query resultant based on the filtered row set. However, White discloses sending a response to the data processing system that indicates the filtered row set, where the data processing system generates a query resultant based on the filtered row set (the commitments to the columns of table 8 depend entirely on the data of the result of the filter. If the filter was the final result of the entire query, it would be sufficient for the prover device 110 to send to the verifier device the filter result along with the index of each row in the original table (i.e. table 1), which would allow the verification device 104 to reconstruct the commitment and check it against the product that was proven) (paragraph 0086). This suggests the claim language sending a response to the data processing system that indicates the filtered row set, where the data processing system generates a query resultant based on the filtered row set. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Vaitheeswaran to include sending a response to the data processing system that indicates the filtered row set, where the data processing system generates a query resultant based on the filtered row set as disclosed by White in order to provide query processing result.
As to claim 2, (Original) Vaitheeswaran discloses the data storage system of claim 1, wherein the data processing system sends the request indicating the filtering parameter data in conjunction with execution of a query by the data processing system (filtered tuples) (paragraph 0096), and wherein the data processing system generates the query resultant for the query based on the filtered row set (search result) (paragraph 0024).
As to claim 7, (Original) Vaitheeswaran discloses the data storage system of claim 1, wherein the filtered row set indicates row storage location for a first filtered row set (one set of master tables (described below) include multiple rows each of which represents one table …) (paragraph 0053) that is a first proper subset of the plurality of records stored by the object storage system based on the object storage system processing the request data (metadata storage) (paragraph 0053).
As to claim 9, (Original) Vaitheeswaran discloses the data storage system of claim 1, wherein the operations further include: receiving a request to store a new plurality of records in accordance with the data storage communication protocol from the data processing system, wherein the new plurality of records was generated by the data processing system based on processing the filtered row set (identifying one or more column in which the identified one or more data items are stored) (paragraph 0007); and
storing the new plurality of records in at least one new file based on processing the request to store the new plurality of records (identifying one or more column in which the identified one or more data items are stored) (paragraph 0007).
As to claim 10, (Original) Vaitheeswaran the data storage system of claim 9, wherein the operations further include:
receiving a second request indicating second filtering parameter data in accordance with
the data storage communication protocol (filter) (paragraph 0089);
generating a second filtered row set identifying a second proper subset of the plurality of
records meeting the filtering parameter data by accessing a second at least one file of the first
plurality of files, wherein the second at least one file includes the at least one new file and wherein the second filtered row set includes at least one row of the new plurality of records; and
sending a second response that indicates the second filtered row set in accordance with the
data storage communication protocol, wherein a second query resultant is generated based on the second filtered row set (tuples) (paragraph 0089)
As to claim 11, (Original) Vaitheeswaran the data storage system of claim 1, wherein the at least one index structure is accessed to generate the filtered row based on the table metadata, and wherein the table metadata includes at least one of: formatting data indicating arrangement of records in files of the first plurality of files (multiple formats) (paragraph 0002); table mapping data indicating tables to which records in files of the first plurality of files belong; row set data indicating records included in various tables of the plurality of tables; indexing configuration data indicating a set of indexing structures that includes the at least one indexing structure (index schema) (paragraph 0021); schema data indicating table fields of tables which records in files of the first plurality of files belong; or access control data indicating accesses allowed for performance by at least one entity that executes queries against the plurality of records.
As to claim 12, (Original) Vaitheeswaran discloses the data storage system of claim 1, wherein the operations further include: automatically generating index structure selection data indicating a determination to generate a first index structure of the at least one index structure indexing a first field for ones of the of plurality of records included in a first table (the search index is a data structure designated to allow fast searches on large amount of data…) (paragraph 0036); and generating the first index structure indexing based on the index structure selection data (the search index is a data structure designated to allow fast searches on large amount of data…) (paragraph 0036).
As to claim 13, (Original) Vaitheeswaran discloses the data storage system of claim 12, wherein the first index structure is generated in accordance with a first indexing type based on the index structure selection data indicating selection of the first indexing type for indexing the first field, and wherein the operations further include:
automatically generating second index structure selection data indicating a determination to generate a second index structure of the at least one index structure via a second indexing type that is different from the first indexing type (the search index is a data structure designated to allow fast searches on large amount of data…) (paragraph 0036); and
generating the second index structure in accordance with the second indexing type based on the second index structure selection data (the search index is a data structure designated to allow fast searches on large amount of data…) (paragraph 0036).
As to claim 14, (Original) the data storage system of claim 13, wherein the second indexing type is selected to be different from the first indexing type based on at least one of:
the first index structure being selected to index a first subset of the set of records having a first record type and the second index structure being selected to index a second subset of the set of records having a second record type different from the first record type (index schema) (paragraph 0021); the first index structure being selected to index the first field having a first field type and the second index structure being selected to index a second field of having a second field type different from the first field type; or the first index structure being selected to index records of a first set of files having a first file type and the second index structure being selected to index a second set of files having a second file type different from the first file type (the crawler engine 302 can find the different types of files in the file system location and identify the files-for example, CVS files or spreadsheet files…) (paragraph 0042).
As to claim 15, (Original) Vaitheeswaran discloses the data storage system of claim 1, wherein the object storage system implements the memory resources in conjunction with an object storage service (index document storage) (paragraph 0071), and wherein the memory resources store the first plurality of files and the second plurality of files via a flat storage structure (flat file) (paraph 0035).
As to claim 16, (Original) Vaitheeswaran discloses the data storage system of claim 1, wherein each file of the first plurality of files and the second plurality of files includes a data portion, an object metadata portion, and a globally unique identifier (data source URI is the unique identifier) (paragraph 0055)
As to claim 17, (Original) Vaitheeswaran discloses the data storage system of claim 1, wherein the data storage system implements a data lakehouse platform (data warehouse) (paragraph 0040) that includes the object storage system (index document storage) (paragraph 0071) and the metadata processing system (search index) (Paragraph 0039).
Claim 19 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Vaitheeswaran discloses a method for execution by at least one processor (processors) (paragraph 0109) of a data storage system.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Vaitheeswaran discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (read-only memory, or a random-access memory or both) (paragraph 0109) comprises: at least one memory section medium (read-only memory, or a random-access memory or both) (paragraph 0109) that stores operational instructions (instruction) (paragraph 0109) that, when executed by at least one processing module that includes a processor (processors) (paragraph 0109) and a memory (read-only memory, or a random-access memory or both) (paragraph 0109), causes the at least one processing module to perform operations.
6. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaitheeswaran et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0166573 A1) in view of White et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0193296 A1) in view of Li et al. (Patent No. US 11.886.422 B1).
As to claim 18, (Original) both Vaitheeswaran and White disclose the data storage system of claim 1, wherein the first plurality of files store the plurality of records in accordance with an open table format. However, Li discloses wherein the first plurality of files store the plurality of records in accordance with an open table format (in some embodiment, this import can be performed very quickly because the transaction access manager 102 leaves the data in place (e.g., in the storage service 112) and only ingests the metadata. Similarly, in some embodiments, users can easily export governed tables to open-source transaction-table format…) (col. 6, lines 33-57). This suggests the claim language wherein the first plurality of files store the plurality of records in accordance with an open table format. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of both Vaitheeswaran and White to include wherein the first plurality of files store the plurality of records in accordance with an open table format as disclosed by Li in order to provide the type of table format for processing.
7. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaitheeswaran et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0166573 A1) in view of White et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0193296 A1) in view of Kondiles et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0365456 A1).
As to claim 3, (Currently amended) both Vaitheeswaran and White discloses the data storage system of claim excepting for wherein the data processing system executes the query based on: generating a query operator execution flow for the query that includes a first at least one operator serially before a second at least one operator; and executing the query operator execution flow for the query to generate the query resultant based on: executing the first at least one operator of the query operator execution flow based on: generating the request, wherein the filtering parameter data indicated in the request is automatically determined based on the query; and sending the request to the data storage system; and executing the second at least one operator of the query operator execution flow based on: processing the filtered row set in accordance with the second at least one operator to produce the query resultant. However, Kondiles discloses generating a query operator execution flow for the query that includes a first at least one operator serially before a second at least one operator; and executing the query operator execution flow for the query to generate the query resultant based on: executing the first at least one operator of the query operator execution flow based on: generating the request, wherein the filtering parameter data indicated in the request is automatically determined based on the query; and sending the request to the data storage system(such operator 2720 that must be performed on a particular number of data blocks, such as all data blocks that will be outputted by one or more immediately prior operator …) (paragraph 0363); and executing the second at least one operator of the query operator execution flow based on: processing the filtered row set in accordance with the second at least one operator to produce the query resultant (blocking operators are only executed in exactly one of the plurality of sequential execution steps if their corresponding operator queue includes all of the required data blocks to be executed…) (paragraph 0363). This suggested the serial ordering execution based on operator work flow. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Vaitheeswaran and White to include generating a query operator execution flow for the query that includes a first at least one operator serially before a second at least one operator; and executing the query operator execution flow for the query to generate the query resultant based on: executing the first at least one operator of the query operator execution flow based on: generating the request, wherein the filtering parameter data indicated in the request is automatically determined based on the query; and sending the request to the data storage system; and executing the second at least one operator of the query operator execution flow based on: processing the filtered row set in accordance with the second at least one operator to produce the query resultant as disclosed by Kondiles in order to provide query exaction work flow.
8. Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaitheeswaran et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0166573 A1) in view of White et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0193296 A1) in view of Cheng et al. (Pub. No. US 2020/0342292 A1).
As to claim 4, (Original) both Vaitheeswaran and White the data storage system of claim excepting for wherein the operations further include: generating a record identification pipeline for execution based on the filtering parameter data, wherein the record identification pipeline includes: a plurality of parallelized branches that implement a plurality of predicates determined
based on the filtering parameter data; and a union element that applies a set union to output of the plurality of parallelized branches; wherein the filtered row set is generated based on executing the record identification pipeline. However, CHENG discloses wherein the operations further include: generating a record identification pipeline for execution based on the filtering parameter data, wherein the record identification pipeline includes: a plurality of parallelized branches that implement a plurality of predicates determined based on the filtering parameter data; and a union element that applies a set union to output of the plurality of parallelized branches; wherein the filtered row set is generated based on executing the record identification pipeline (… control the parallel computing unit to execute the received convolution subtask; transmit a pooling parameter of a target pooling subtask to the pooling computation unit in response to receiving indication that the convolution subtask has been completely execute, and control the pooling computation unit to execute the target pooling subtask, wherein the target pooling subtask refers to a pooling subtask corresponding to the convolution subtask which corresponds to the parallel computing unit transmitting the received indication information; merge the execution results of the respective pooling subtasks received from the pooling computation unit to obtain an execution result of the convolution task) (paragraph 0015).
As to claim 5, (Original) Vaitheeswaran the data storage system of claim 4, wherein the record identification pipeline includes an index element, and wherein the at least one index structure is accessed to generate the filtered row set based on executing the index element of the record identification pipeline (index) (paragraph 0007).
9. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaitheeswaran et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0166573 A1) in view of White et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0193296 A1) in view Lei et al. (Pub. No. US 2003/0236781 A1).
As to claim 6, (Original) Vaitheeswaran and White discloses the data storage system of claim 1 excepting for wherein the operations further include: storing access control data regarding the at least one table; and generating, based on the filtering parameter data and the access control data, filtered row set access restriction data indicating whether access to the filtered row set is allowed; wherein the response indicating the filtered row set is generated based on the filtered row set access restriction data indicating access to the filtered row set is allowed. However, Gladwin discloses wherein the operations further include: storing access control data regarding the at least one table; and generating, based on the filtering parameter data and the access control data, filtered row set access restriction data indicating whether access to the filtered row set is allowed; wherein the response indicating the filtered row set is generated based on the filtered row set access restriction data indicating access to the filtered row set is allowed (Fined-grained access control allows important capabilities. These include row-level filtering, as described in Database Fine-Grained Access Control (both application), virtual partitioning of user data in a table as described in Partitioned Access Control to a Database, and controlling access to aggregate information, as described in Enforcing data Privacy data Privacy Aggregations) (paragraph 0008). This suggested the claimed limitation wherein the operations further include: storing access control data regarding the at least one table; and generating, based on the filtering parameter data and the access control data, filtered row set access restriction data indicating whether access to the filtered row set is allowed; wherein the response indicating the filtered row set is generated based on the filtered row set access restriction data indicating access to the filtered row set is allowed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before effective date of the instant application to modify teaching of Vaitheeswaran and White to include wherein the operations further include: storing access control data regarding the at least one table; and generating, based on the filtering parameter data and the access control data, filtered row set access restriction data indicating whether access to the filtered row set is allowed; wherein the response indicating the filtered row set is generated based on the filtered row set access restriction data indicating access to the filtered row set is allowed as disclosed by Lei in order to provide restriction to access.
10. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaitheeswaran et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0166573 A1) in view of White et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0193296 A1) in view of Disciascio et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0065436 A1).
As to claim 8, (Original) Vaitheeswaran and White discloses the data storage system of claim 1 wherein the first plurality of files correspond to a plurality of different file formats that collectively include the plurality of records excepting for wherein the operations further include: processing the request in accordance with the data storage communication protocol to
generate the filtered row set based on: identifying a first proper subset of the filtered row set that includes at least one first row included in a first file of the object storage system having a first file format of the plurality of different file formats; and identifying a second proper subset of the filtered row set that includes at least one second row included in a second file of the object storage system having a second file format of the plurality of different file formats. However, Disciascio discloses wherein the operations further include: processing the request in accordance with the data storage communication protocol to generate the filtered row set based on: identifying a first proper subset of the filtered row set that includes at least one first row included in a first file of the object storage system having a first file format of the plurality of different file formats; and identifying a second proper subset of the filtered row set that includes at least one second row included in a second file of the object storage system having a second file format of the plurality of different file formats (additionally, that subset of traffic can be further filtered based on various traffic attributes such as the communication protocol (e.g., whether or not it is encrypted). For example, traffic utilizing “http” instead of merely using “http” may be of more interest and thus the traffic captures in step 202 for further analysis can be limited to “http” traffic) (paragraph 0027). This suggests wherein the operations further include: processing the request in accordance with the data storage communication protocol to generate the filtered row set based on: identifying a first proper subset of the filtered row set that includes at least one first row included in a first file of the object storage system having a first file format of the plurality of different file formats; and identifying a second proper subset of the filtered row set that includes at least one second row included in a second file of the object storage system having a second file format of the plurality of different file formats. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of Vaitheeswaran and White to include wherein the operations further include: processing the request in accordance with the data storage communication protocol to generate the filtered row set based on: identifying a first proper subset of the filtered row set that includes at least one first row included in a first file of the object storage system having a first file format of the plurality of different file formats; and identifying a second proper subset of the filtered row set that includes at least one second row included in a second file of the object storage system having a second file format of the plurality of different file formats as disclosed by in order to provide subset data.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154