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
19032973 filed 01/21/2025 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63730041 , filed 12/10/2024
19032973 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
19441000 filed on 01/06/2026 is a Continuation in Part of 19032973 , filed on 01/21/2025
19441073 filed on 01/01/0001 is a Continuation in Part of 19032973 , filed on 01/21/2025
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
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/13/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/033,772 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim language direct to the similar language. The 772 also include determining a query for execution; 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 to generate a query resultant based on: executing the first at least one operator of the query operator execution flow based on: generating, based on the query, a request for rows in accordance with a data storage communication protocol, Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to remove the additional elements 772 to arrive the same invention as claimed.
4. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/032,908 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim language direct to the similar language. The 908 further include other table include index storing information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify 908 to arrive the same invention as claimed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 and 6-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nash et al. (Patent No. US 12,450,215 B1) and ISHERWOOD et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0321338 A1).
As to claim 1, (Original) Nash discloses a data storage system comprising:
at least one processor (processor 1102) (col. 15, line 5); and
at least one memory(processor 1104) (col. 15, line 5) storing operational instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (processor 1102) (col. 15, line 5), cause the at least one processor (memory 1102) (col. 15, line 5) to perform operations that include:
storing a plurality of records of a plurality of tables via a plurality of files in memory resources of an object storage system of the data storage system (object storage) (col. 4, lines 10-11);
storing configuration data indicating table metadata, mapping storage of the plurality of records of the plurality of tables via the plurality of files, via a metadata processing system of the data storage system (metadata associated with the data objects) (col 4, lines 13-14);
receiving a request from a data processing system indicating filtering parameter
data in accordance with data storage communication protocol (a database (DB) service module 104 may perform operations on the object storage 102 upon receiving a request from an application platform 110) (col. 4, lines 14-16);
Nash does not explicitly disclose generating, via the metadata processing system, a record identification pipeline for execution based on the filtering parameter data and the configuration data based on accessing the table metadata; generating a filtered row set identifying a proper subset of the plurality of records meeting the filtering parameter data based on executing the record identification pipeline via the metadata processing system by accessing at least one file of the plurality of files in the memory resources of the object storage system; and sending a response to the data processing system that indicates the filtered row set
in accordance with the data storage communication protocol, wherein the data processing generates a query resultant based on the filtered row set.
However, Nash discloses generating, via the metadata processing system, a record identification pipeline for execution based on the filtering parameter data and the configuration data based on accessing the table metadata; generating a filtered row set identifying a proper subset of the plurality of records meeting the filtering parameter data based on executing the record identification pipeline via the metadata processing system by accessing at least one file of the plurality of files in the memory resources of the object storage system; and sending a response to the data processing system that indicates the filtered row set in accordance with the data storage communication protocol, wherein the data processing generates a query resultant based on the filtered row set. However, ISHERWOOD discloses generating, via the metadata processing system, a record identification pipeline for execution based on the filtering parameter data and the configuration data based on accessing the table metadata; generating a filtered row set identifying a proper subset of the plurality of records meeting the filtering parameter data based on executing the record identification pipeline via the metadata processing system by accessing at least one file of the plurality of files in the memory resources of the object storage system; and sending a response to the data processing system that indicates the filtered row set in accordance with the data storage communication protocol, wherein the data processing generates a query resultant based on the filtered row set (when a client writes an object to one or two storage systems in an active/active topology, each storage system transfers the metadata (before sending file data) separately to other storage system transfers the metadata parts (file path, version, create time, etc..) and any annotations (e.g., custom metadata). At a later time point in time, the data is transferred by batch process and the complete object becomes protected at multiple sites. Once the other storage systems receive the metadata portion of objects, the objects are then made fully visible to clients on a remote system may view and access these objects, even though only the metadata portion of these object exists on the local system…) (paragraph 0065). This suggests the claim language of generating, via the metadata processing system, a record identification pipeline for execution based on the filtering parameter data and the configuration data based on accessing the table metadata; generating a filtered row set identifying a proper subset of the plurality of records meeting the filtering parameter data based on executing the record identification pipeline via the metadata processing system by accessing at least one file of the plurality of files in the memory resources of the object storage system; and sending a response to the data processing system that indicates the filtered row set in accordance with the data storage communication protocol, wherein the data processing 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 filling date of the instant application to modify Nash to include generating, via the metadata processing system, a record identification pipeline for execution based on the filtering parameter data and the configuration data based on accessing the table metadata; generating a filtered row set identifying a proper subset of the plurality of records meeting the filtering parameter data based on executing the record identification pipeline via the metadata processing system by accessing at least one file of the plurality of files in the memory resources of the object storage system; and sending a response to the data processing system that indicates the filtered row set in accordance with the data storage communication protocol, wherein the data processing generates a query resultant based on the filtered row set as disclosed by ISHERWOOD in order to provide data to processing system.
As to claim 2. (Original) Nash 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, and wherein the data processing system generates the query resultant for the query based on the filtered row set (separate parameters to the createcollection API to specify a list of searchable field) (col. 5, lines 1-5).
As to claim 6. (Original) Nash discloses the data storage system of claim 1, wherein the filtered row set indicates row storage location data for a first filtered row set 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 (retrieved the collections) (col. 4, lines 31-37) (collection include subset of data).
As to claim 7, (Original) Nash discloses the data storage system of claim 6, wherein the data processing system determines a second filtered row set as a second proper subset of the first filtered row set based on executing at least one query operator, and wherein the operations further include:
receiving a second request for field values that indicates the row storage location data for the second filtered row set in accordance with the data storage communication protocol; and
sending a second response indicating the field values of the second filtered row set based
on processing the request for field values (the database service may determine whether the one or more fields are searchable…) (col. 3, lines 11-12).
As to claim 8, (Original) Nash discloses the data storage system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of files correspond to a plurality of different file formats that collectively include the plurality of records, and 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 object of the object storage system having a first file format of the
plurality of different file formats (various formats such as JSON schema, XSD, CSV schema etc.) (col. 2, lines 20-32); and
identifying a second proper subset of the filtered row set that includes at least one second row included in a second object of the object storage system having a second file
format of the plurality of different file formats (various formats such as JSON schema, XSD, CSV schema etc.) (col. 2, lines 20-32);
As to claim 9, (Original) Nash 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 (the database service may added the new data object) (col. 3, lines 13-15); 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 (object storage and store the actual object data in a large capacity..) (col. 3, lines 35-40).
As to claim 10, (Original) Nash discloses 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 ((the request may include a second digital file (e.g., schema)…) (col. 3, lines 11-12);
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 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 ((the request may include a second digital file (e.g., schema)…) (col. 3, lines 11-12).
As to claim 11, (Original) Nash discloses the data storage system of claim 1, wherein the table metadata includes at least one of:
formatting data indicating arrangement of records in files of the plurality of files;
table mapping data indicating tables to which records in files of the plurality of files belong;
row set data indicating records included in various tables (various formats such as JSON schema, XSD, CSV schema etc..) (col. 2, lines 20-32);
indexing configuration data indicating at least one indexing structure for at least one field
of at least one table of the plurality of tables (indexable or searchable) (col. 2, line 30);
schema data indicating table columns of tables of the plurality of tables to which records
in files of the plurality of files belong (JSON schema…) (col. 2, lines 20-32); or
access control data indicating accesses allowed for performance by at least one entity that executes queries against the plurality of records (which can be accessed…) (col. 15, lines 40-41).
As to claim 12, (Original) Nash discloses the data storage system of claim 1, wherein storing the table metadata includes storing a set of index structures indexing the plurality of records for at least one table of the plurality of tables for at least one field of the at least one table; wherein the filtered row set is generated based on accessing a first index structure indexing a first field for ones of the of plurality of records included in a first table (when one or more fields are searchable or indexable, the database search service may create an index in the index storage based on the attributes) (col. 2, lines 47-50).
As to claim 13 (Original) Nash discloses the data storage system of claim 12, wherein the table metadata indicates the first index structure indexes the first field for the ones of the of plurality of records included in the first table, wherein the record identification pipeline includes an index element, and wherein the first index structure is accessed to generate the filtered row set based on executing the index element of the record identification pipeline (the database service may send a request to a second computing device (e.g., a database search service) to create an index for the collection in an index storage) (col. 2, lines 40-44).
As to claim 14, (Original) Nash discloses the data storage system of claim 12, wherein the operations further include: processing the table metadata to automatically generate index structure selection data indicating a determination to generate the first index structure indexing the first field for the ones of the of plurality of records included in the first table; and generating the first index structure indexing based on the index structure selection data (the database service may send a request to a second computing device (e.g., a database search service) to create an index for the collection in an index storage) (col. 2, lines 40-44).
As to claim 15, (Original) Nash discloses the data storage system of claim 1, wherein the object storage system implements the memory resources in conjunction with an object storage service, and wherein the memory resources store the plurality of files via a flat storage structure (various formats such as JSON schema, XSD, CSV schema etc..) (col. 2, lines 20-32).
As to claim 16, (Original) Nash discloses the data storage system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of files include a data portion, an object metadata portion (metadata , and a globally unique identifier (collection ID (e.g., UUID) ) (col. 7, lines 30-34).
As to claim 17, (Original) Nash discloses the data storage system of claim 1, wherein the data storage system implements a data lakehouse platform that includes the object storage system and the metadata processing system (object storage and metadata or index system) (col 4, lines 10-30)
As to claim 18, (Original) Nash discloses the data storage system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of files store the plurality of records in accordance with an open table format (various formats such as JSON schema, XSD, CSV schema etc..) (col. 2, lines 20-32).
Claim 19 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Nash discloses a method for execution by at least one processor (processor 1102) (col. 15, line 5) of a data storage system (storage system) (col 4, lines 10-30),
Claim 20 is rejected under the same rejection as to claim 1, Nash discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises: at least one memory (memory 1104) (col. 13, line 5) section that stores operational instructions (instructions) (col. 15, lines 17-18) that, when executed by at least one processing module (the processing module, 1106) (col. 15, line 44) that includes a processor (processor 1102) (col. 5, line 5) and a memory (memory 1104) (col. 15, line 5), causes the at least one processing module (the processing module, 1106) (col. 15, line 44) to perform operations.
6. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nash et al. (Patent No. US 12,450,315 B1) and ISHERWOOD et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0321338 A1) in view of Mimatsu (Pub. No. US 2009/0177836 A1).
As to claim 3. (Currently amended) Nash discloses the data storage system of claim 2 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, Mimatsu discloses 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 (when the file does already exist storage system control program 1206 identifies the file system in which file is stored by searching FS ID in the file system…) (paragraph 0197); 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 (at step 20004, when the state of the file system in which the file currently exists is “UP”, storage system control program 1206…) (paragraph 0198-0204). This suggests the claim language of 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. 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 Nash to include 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 as disclosed by Mimatsu in order to retrieve data.
7. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nash et al. (Patent No. US 12,450,315 B1) and ISHERWOOD et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0321338 A1) and further in view of Dageville et al. (US Patent No. 10,534,792 B2).
As to claim 4 (Original) Nash discloses the data storage system of claim 1 excepting for 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. However, Dageville discloses 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 (during the execution of query plan, the plurality of row of database data to a plurality of secondary operators in the query plan for concurrent processing by the plurality of secondary operators within one or more second executions nodes… performing a final join operation on the intermedia result and the plurality of second results to generate the final result…) (claim 1). This suggests the claim language 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify to include 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 as disclosed by Dageville in order to provide quickly results.
8. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nash et al. (Patent No. US 12,450,315 B1) and ISHERWOOD et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0321338 A1) and further in view of Metzer et al. (Pub. No. US 2008/0072290 A1).
As to claim 5. (Original) The data storage system of claim 1 excepting for wherein the operations further include: storing access control data regarding the plurality of tables; 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. Metzer discloses wherein the operations further include: storing access control data regarding the plurality of tables; 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 (once the records are retrieved, the unique aspects of the work flow are initiated. The initiate Review function establishes the workflow to address the access restriction that might be applied to the records (Paragraphs 0246-0247). This suggests the claimed language storing access control data regarding the plurality of tables; 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 int eh art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Nash to include storing access control data regarding the plurality of tables; 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 Metzer in order to protect data.
Conclusion
9. 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