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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 05/12/2026. Claims 1 and 3-15 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 13 and 14 are independent claims. Claim 2 is canceled while claim 15 is newly added. This Action is made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, "an encrypted lookup operation" in lines 4-5 of the claim 1 should be "an encrypted table lookup operation" in order for “the encrypted table lookup operation” in the later limitations in the claim 1 to be properly referred to without having antecedent basis issues. Claims 3-12 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1 and 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 13 and 14 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and method respectively under step 1. The claims 1, 13 and 14 similarly recite “a computer-implemented method of optimizing a computer program for an execution environment, the execution environment being a computation by a homomorphic encryption that supports at least an encrypted addition operation, an encrypted scalar multiplication operation and an encrypted lookup operation, wherein the method comprises: accessing, over a data storage interface, a representation of the computer program as a computation graph in a data storage, wherein respective nodes of the computation graph represent respective operations; determining, for respective nodes of the computation graph, whether or not the respective node can be implemented by the encrypted table lookup operation, comprising determining that a node having multiple inputs can be implemented by the encrypted table lookup operation based on determining that the multiple inputs have a common ancestor; replacing the node by a first subgraph representing a first implementation if it is determined that the node can be implemented by the encrypted table lookup operation; and replacing the node by a second subgraph representing a second implementation otherwise; determining, for the node that can be implemented by the encrypted table lookup operation, that one or more further nodes of the computation graph can be fused into the encrypted table lookup operation, and determining that one or more further nodes from the second subgraph of another node can be fused into the encrypted table lookup operation; and outputting, over a communication interface, a transformed representation of the computer program, wherein the node and the one or more further nodes are fused into a single encrypted table lookup operation”.
The limitation of the claims 1, 13 and 14 of “determining, for respective nodes of the computation graph, whether or not the respective node can be implemented by the encrypted table lookup operation, comprising determining that a node having multiple inputs can be implemented by the encrypted table lookup operation based on determining that the multiple inputs have a common ancestor;” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine for respective nodes of the computation graph, whether or not the respective node can be implemented by a table lookup operation by determining that a node having multiple inputs can be implemented by a table lookup operation based on determining that the multiple inputs have a common ancestor by visually analyzing the computation graph with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 13 and 14 of “replacing the node by a first subgraph representing a first implementation if it is determined that the node can be implemented by the encrypted table lookup operation; and replacing the node by a second subgraph representing a second implementation otherwise” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “replacing a node [changing a node]” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may replace a node by a first subgraph representing a first implementation if it is determined that the node can be implemented by a table lookup operation and replace the node by a second subgraph representing a second implementation otherwise by visually analyzing the computation graph with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 13 and 14 of “determining, for the node that can be implemented by the encrypted table lookup operation, that one or more further nodes of the computation graph can be fused into the encrypted table lookup operation, and” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine for a node that can be implemented by a table lookup operation, that one or more further nodes of the computation graph can be fused into the table lookup operation by visually analyzing the computation graph with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 13 and 14 of “determining that one or more further nodes from the second subgraph of another node can be fused into the encrypted table lookup operation” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine that one or more further nodes from the second subgraph of another node can be fused into the table lookup operation with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 13 and 14 recite additional elements such as “the execution environment being a computation by a homomorphic encryption that supports at least an encrypted addition operation, an encrypted scalar multiplication operation and an encrypted lookup operation”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 13 and 14 recite additional elements such as “accessing, over a data storage interface, a representation of the computer program as a computation graph in a data storage, wherein respective nodes of the computation graph represent respective operations”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 13 and 14 recite additional elements such as “outputting, over a communication interface, a transformed representation of the computer program, wherein the node and the one or more further nodes are fused into a single encrypted table lookup operation”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data outputting under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 13 recites additional elements such as “the communication interface, in communication with the processor subsystem, configured to output the transformed representation of the computer program”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data outputting under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 3 recites additional elements such as “the table lookup operation is a hardware lookup table”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 4 recites additional elements such as “one or more operations from a first set of operations are never implemented by the table lookup operation; one or more operations from a second set of operations are implemented by the table lookup depending on the computation graph; and one or more operations from a third set of operations are always implemented by the table lookup operation”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 5 recites additional elements such as “the second set of types comprises at least an addition operation”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
The limitation of the claim 6 of “iterating over the computation graph to establish for each operation if a table lookup operation can be used for the operation” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “iterating (searching)” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may iterate over the computation graph to establish for each operation if a table lookup operation can be [determined to be] used for the operation with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 7 of “the second implementation is configured to quantize an input to an integer; apply an integer operation corresponding to the node to get an integer output; and dequantize the integer output” as drafted, is a mathematical operation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operations but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “quantizing”, “applying an integer operation” and “dequantizing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may quantize an input to an integer, apply an integer operation corresponding to the node to get an integer output, and dequantize the integer output with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 8 of “an operation is applied to one or more input tensors and results in an output tensor, and wherein a table lookup operation is applied elementwise to a single input tensor” as drafted, is a mathematical operation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical operations but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “applying [math operation]” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may apply an operation to one or more input tensors and results in an output tensor, wherein a table lookup operation is applied elementwise to a single input tensor with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claim 9 of “reordering the computation graph to fuse at least one operation preceding the reshaping node with at least one operation succeeding the reshaping node” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “re-ordering” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may reorder the computation graph to fuse at least one operation preceding the reshaping node with at least one operation succeeding the reshaping node with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 9 recites additional elements such as “obtaining a reshaping node representing an operation that reorganizes elements of one or more input tensors without changing their values”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 10 recites additional elements such as “the transformed representation of the computer program does not comprise a table lookup operation being applied to an output of a further table lookup operation”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 11 recites additional elements such as “the transformed representation of the computer program does not comprise a reshaping operation being applied to an output of a table lookup operation, wherein the reshaping operation rearranges one or more inputs without changing their values”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 12 recites additional elements such as “the computer program represents the evaluation of a machine learnable model, for example an artificial neural network, a generalized linear model, a decision tree, or an ensemble model”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
The limitation of the claim 15 of ”data representing a transformed representation of a computer program determined according to the computer-implemented method” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine data representing a transformed representation of a computer program according to the computer-implemented method with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Dependent claims 3-12 and 15 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 3-12 and 15 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1 and 14.
Reasons for Allowance
6. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior-art, Wang (US PGPub 20230103430), in view of Schechter (US PGPub 20230359668) and further in view of Radhakrishnan (US PGPub 20250208924) failed to disclose of a computer-implemented method of optimizing a computer program for an execution environment that supports a table lookup operation, wherein the method comprises: accessing a representation of the computer program as a computation graph, wherein respective nodes of the computation graph represent respective operations; determining, for respective nodes of the computation graph, whether or not the respective node can be implemented by a table lookup operation, comprising determining that a node having multiple inputs can be implemented by a table lookup operation based on determining that the multiple inputs have a common ancestor; replacing a node by a first subgraph representing a first implementation if it is determined that the node can be implemented by a table lookup operation; and replacing the node by a second subgraph representing a second implementation otherwise; determining, for a node that can be implemented by a table lookup operation, that one or more further nodes of the computation graph can be fused into the table lookup operation, and determining that one or more further nodes from the second subgraph of another node can be fused into the table lookup operation; outputting a transformed representation of the computer program wherein the node and the one or more further nodes are fused into a single table lookup operation, as recited by the independent claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior-art found, Wang, Schechter and Radhakrishnan discloses of a computer-implemented method of optimizing a computer program for an execution environment that supports a table lookup operation, wherein the method comprises: accessing a representation of the computer program as a computation graph, wherein respective nodes of the computation graph represent respective operations; determining, for respective nodes of the computation graph, whether or not the respective node can be implemented by a table lookup operation, comprising determining that a node having multiple inputs can be implemented by a table lookup operation based on determining that the multiple inputs have a common ancestor; determining, for a node that can be implemented by a table lookup operation, that one or more further nodes of the computation graph can be fused into the table lookup operation, and determining that one or more further nodes from the second subgraph of another node can be fused into the table lookup operation; outputting a transformed representation of the computer program wherein the node and the one or more further nodes are fused into a single table lookup operation.
Individually, Wang teaches that it should be noted that the sequence structure context model and the sub-graph context model above may share a table corresponding to the table lookup operation. Therefore, different context data may have a common impact on entity representation learning, such that the entity may fully learn various context data. The first training module 50 is configured to: obtain a sample knowledge graph, the sample knowledge graph including entity nodes and edges; by a table lookup operation, obtain a first vector representations of the entity nodes and the edges in the sample knowledge graph, and obtain a second vector representations of position information of the entity nodes and the edges in the sample knowledge graph.
Schechter teaches that accordingly, the transformation engine 412 may perform a width reduction transformation that removes the unused or otherwise unnecessary data (e.g., by inserting a node to delete the data at the identified point, by replacing a node configured to perform several operations with another node configured to perform only those operations whose results are used, etc.). In this way, the transformation engine 412 optimizes the dataflow graph by reducing the computational resources needed by the dataflow graph to carry data through subsequent operations (e.g., by reducing network, memory, and processing resources utilized).
Radhakrishnan teaches that the compilation produces a single binary object that is deployed to the DPU at runtime, and therefore, the subgraph is replaced with a single operation, referred to as a “DPUOp”, replacing nodes in the subgraph. When encountered, this custom operation loads the compiled binary from disk and executes it on the DPU 344.
However, the prior art, Wang, Schechter and Radhakrishnan failed to disclose the allowable subject matter as “replacing a node by a first subgraph representing a first implementation if it is determined that the node can be implemented by a table lookup operation; and replacing the node by a second subgraph representing a second implementation otherwise”.
Claim 13 is the system claim, similar to the claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-13 contain allowable subject matter.
7. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 13 and 14 and their dependent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument w.r.t. 101 Abstract Idea rejection on the claims 1, 13 and 14 and their dependent claims of the remark on pages 9-11 that the amendment to the claims would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since these features are in a real world application with medical applications such as classifying medical image in the specification, the examiner would like to point out that in order to determine if additional element is integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, 1) The specification should describe the claimed improvement to achieve the desired goal and 2) The claimed improvement should be reflected at least in the additional elements by specifying how the claimed improvement performs the additional element to improve functioning of a computer or existing technical field.
2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field [R-07.2022]
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.
I. RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR EVALUATING WHETHER ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS INTEGRATE A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c) and MPEP § 2106.05(e) through (h).
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights