DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Acknowledgments
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement.
This Application is a continuation application of 18609487.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 recites The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the operations further comprise: determining the first bid price fails to meet the first equilibrium value; and in response to the determining the first bid price fails to meet the first equilibrium value, adjusting the network slice specification by relaxing a performance requirement when. The word “when” should not be included at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, and 11 are allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to these claims include Reith (US20180220358A1) herein Reith 358 in further Reith (US20180220008A1) herein Reith 008 in further view of Eriksson (US20190037398A1) who teaches EPC (i.e. Evolved Packet Core). However, with respect to exemplary claims 2, 3, and 11, the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality of claims 2, 3, and 11.
Claim 5 is allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to these claims include Reith (US20180220358A1) herein Reith 358 in further Reith (US20180220008A1) herein Reith 008 in further view of Yenisetty (US20170039633A1) who teaches historical auction data and historical item listing to determine a price. However, with respect to exemplary claim 5, the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality of claim 5.
Claim 7 and 16 are allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to these claims include Reith (US20180220358A1) herein Reith 358 in further Reith (US20180220008A1) herein Reith 008 in further view of Zhou (US20080125122A1) who teaches updating prices based on amount of demand and supply resources. However, with respect to exemplary claims 7 and 16, the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality of claims 7 and 16.
Claim 14 is allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to these claims include Reith (US20180220358A1) herein Reith 358 who teaches performance requirements in further Reith (US20180220008A1) herein Reith 008 who teaches bid prices and bid prices that do not meet the equilibrium value in further view of Hudson (US20150287132A1) who teaches modifying auction parameters if an equilibrium price (i.e. reserve/minimum price) is not met. However, with respect to exemplary claim 14, the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality of claim 14.
Claim 17 is allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to these claims include Reith (US20180220358A1) herein Reith 358 in further Reith (US20180220008A1) herein Reith 008 who teaches virtual machine at a cloud location which is based on the bidding that considers the minimum price (i.e. equilibrium price) in further view of Zhou (US20080125122A1) who teaches updating prices based on amount of demand and supply resources. However, with respect to exemplary claim 17, the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality of claim 17.
Claim 18 is allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to these claims include Reith (US20180220358A1) herein Reith 358 who teaches a radio access network latency in further Reith (US20180220008A1) herein Reith 008 who teaches a virtual machine at a cloud location in further view of Zhou (US20080125122A1) who teaches updating prices based on amount of demand and supply resources. However, with respect to exemplary claim 18, the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality of claim 18.
Claim 19 is allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to these claims include Reith (US20180220358A1) herein Reith 358 in further Reith (US20180220008A1) herein Reith 008 who teaches a virtual machine at a cloud location in further view of Zhou (US20080125122A1) who teaches updating prices based on amount of demand and supply resources in further view of Hudson (US20150287132A1) who teaches modifying auction parameters if an equilibrium price (i.e. reserve/minimum price) is not met. However, with respect to exemplary claim 19, the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality of claim 19.
Claim 20 is allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to these claims include Reith (US20180220358A1) herein Reith 358 in further Reith (US20180220008A1) herein Reith 008 who teaches a virtual machine at a cloud location in further view of Zhou (US20080125122A1) who teaches updating prices based on amount of demand and supply resources in further view of Sciancalepore (US20180317133A1) who teaches service level agreements in connection to a network slice. However, with respect to exemplary claim 20, the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality of claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-20 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium, device, and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-20 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claim 9 recite the limitations of
…obtaining a network slice specification…determining a first equilibrium value for a network slice configured in accordance with the network slice specification; comparing a first bid price for the network slice to the first equilibrium value; and based on the comparing, providing service…
Claim 16 recites
Determining…a network slice specification; determining a first equilibrium value for a network slice configured in accordance with the network slice specification; comparing a first bid price for the network slice to the first equilibrium value; based on the comparing, providing a service using the network slice in accordance with the network slice specification; updating the first equilibrium value for the network slice based on an updated resource availability, resulting in a second equilibrium value; and providing the service using the network slice according to the second equilibrium value.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of obtaining, determining, comparing, updating, and providing data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of processor and memory, the claim language encompasses simply obtaining network slice information, determining an equilibrium value, comparing a first bid value with an equilibrium value, and providing a service based on the comparison. These steps are mere data manipulation steps than can be done without the use of a computer. A user is able to provide a service based on comparing bids to an equilibrium value without the use of a computer. A user is also able to update an equilibrium value without the use of a computer. A user is also able to update network slice information, for example, a user can receive a sheet of paper with network slice information.
The claims also recite comparing a bid price with an equilibrium value. This bid price is with respect to an auction as seen in para 0022-0024. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (sales activity, fundamental economic principles or practices; business relations, interactions between people). The idea of an auction is not novel and has been done before the technological age. It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of device, processing system, processor, memory, network slice, VNF topology, and a non-transitory machine-readable medium.
These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe the additional element of a VNP topology. In addition, the dependent claims further describe the equilibrium value being associated with time periods. In addition, the dependent claims further describe the equilibrium value being based on historical pricing data.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
Device, processing system, processor, memory, VNF topology, network slice
Claim 2 and 11 recite cloud architecture, software defined network radio receiving unit in communication with a base station, a software defined network access evolved packet core (EPC)
Claim 3 recites edge cloud architecture, edge software defined network EPC, core cloud architecture, and a core software defined network EPC.
Claim 6, 15, and 18 recite traffic flow, end to end latency, and radio access network (RAN) latency
Claim 8, 13, and 17 recites virtual machine and cloud location
Claim 9 recites non-transitory machine-readable medium, processor, VNF topology, network slice
Claim 16 recites a method, however method is not considered an additional element.
Claim 16 further recites processing system, vnf topology, and network slice.
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states a general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0055.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0055. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reith (US20180220358A1) herein Reith 358 in further Reith (US20180220008A1) herein Reith 008.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Reith 358 teaches
A device comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations comprising (See para 0124-The methods, systems and devices described herein may be implemented as software in a Digital Signal Processor (DSP), in a micro-controller or in any other side-processor or as hardware circuit within an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) of a Digital Signal Processor (DSP).) (See para 0125-The invention can be implemented in digital electronic circuitry, or in computer hardware, firmware, software, or in combinations thereof, e.g. in available hardware of conventional optical transceiver devices or in new hardware dedicated for processing the methods described herein.) (See fig. 1) This teaches processor and memory. This also teaches a device such as a computer.
A non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: (See para 0126-Such a computer program product may include a readable non-transitory storage medium storing program code thereon for use by a computer. The program code may perform the method 300 as described above with respect to FIG. 3.) This teaches a memory. (See fig. 1) Figure 1 shows a system.
Obtaining/determining a network slice specification, the network slice specification associated with a performance requirement of a virtual network function (VNF) topology The network slice is defined/determined using the VNFs from the activation layer 404. (See para 0112-The activation layer 404 is arranged above the infrastructure & resources layer 405. It uses the objects of the infrastructure & resources layer 405 and adds additional functionality to these objects, for example in the form of (non-physical) software objects/VNFs (virtual network functions) to enable generation of any type of network slices) The VNFs will have to have performance requirements for the network slice based on the KPI set by the user (See para 0113-For example, a user can create a mobile broadband slice and define merely a KPI (Key Performance Indicator)). In addition, the network slice can also have a performance requirement to correspond to RAN resource (See para 0018- In an implementation form of the network resources brokering system, the at least one network resource is a radio access network (RAN) resource and the brokering entity is configured to grant access to the RAN resource.)
Even though Reith 358 teaches bids, it doesn't teach equilibrium value and comparing with respect to equilibrium value, however Reith 008 teaches
determining a first equilibrium value for a network slice configured in accordance with the network slice specification (See para 0007- and that the minimum price predefined by the charging party applies)(See para 0008-The charging party may demand a minimum price per chargeable consumption unit, and all bidding parties which do not provide a bid or only offer the minimum price in their bid will be placed into the lowest success-class and thus ranked lowest.) The charging party determines the equilibrium price/value which corresponds to equilibrium value. This is in accordance with network splice specification such as which resources are available (i.e. slices) how long splice is used (i.e. charging period) and amount of traffic classes with respect to the network slices (See para 0261-The bidding process 2600 includes a first step 2601: Charging party determines chargeable resources that are subject of capacity brokering architecture ) (See para 0262-0263-Charging party (resource owner/operator or agent of resource owner) determines duration of charging period…The bidding process 2600 includes a third step 2603: Charging Party determines amount of traffic classes to be offered per charging period.)
comparing a first bid price for the network slice to the first equilibrium value (See para 0007- and that the minimum price predefined by the charging party applies)(See para 0008-The charging party may demand a minimum price per chargeable consumption unit, and all bidding parties which do not provide a bid or only offer the minimum price in their bid will be placed into the lowest success-class and thus ranked lowest.) This shows a comparison of bids with the equilibrium value/minimum price.
and based on the comparing, providing service using the network slice in accordance with the network slice specification. (See para 0182- The communication network 110 may be a network according to a fifth generation (5G) according to a further generation. The controller 221 may grant the selected network entity 121 access 124 with preferential treatment to at least one network resource of a network slice of the communication network. ) (See para 0298-The bidding process 2700 includes a first step 2701: Charging party determines chargeable resources that are subject of capacity brokering architecture where resources are granted depending on bids offered, ) This shows granting service based on bids.
Reith 358 and Reith 008 are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area of network slice bidding and both belong to classification G06Q30. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Reith 358's invention by incorporating the method of Reith 0008 because Reith 358 can also implement ranking the different bids with respect to classes. This way, the brokering system would be able to see who are the high class bidders and the low class bidders. This would make it easier to filter out bids that are nowhere near the asking price for the slice owner. This also makes the system of Reith 358 more sophisticated since it is adding another analyzing step after receiving bids.
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Reith 358 and Reith 008 teach the limitations of claim 1 and 9, however Reith 008 further teaches
wherein the first equilibrium value is associated with a first time period, and wherein the operations further comprise: determining a second equilibrium value associated with a second time period for the network slice/ a second time slot subsequent to the first time slot (See para 0006- The invention is based on the idea to introduce dynamic pricing to the process of price definition for chargeable consumption units that get consumed during a charging period) (See para 0043- a differentiated minimum price per charging period has the same effect as differentiated time of day accounting.) (See para 0294- In an embodiment where an operator utilizes the network brokering system to implement a scalable time of day accounting that is in addition price differentiated per regional service area ) This teaches that price can be changed (i.e. dynamic pricing) with respect to time of day accounting. A charging party can determine a minimum price for one time period and determine another minimum price for another time period. For example, a charging party can determine a higher minimum price for normal business hours and lower minimum price for evening hours, this will be reflected in the bids (See para 0290- the price that the operator demands in his time of day dependant wholesale tariff, which may for include a higher bid for the business hours of the weekdays and a lower bid for the evening hours, and an even lower bid for the night-time hours and for the weekend hours.). The nighttime hours is subsequent to the normal daytime hours.
comparing a second bid price for the second time period to the second equilibrium value (See para 0007- and that the minimum price predefined by the charging party applies)(See para 0008-The charging party may demand a minimum price per chargeable consumption unit, and all bidding parties which do not provide a bid or only offer the minimum price in their bid will be placed into the lowest success-class and thus ranked lowest.) This shows a comparison of bids with the equilibrium value/minimum price.
and based on the comparing the second bid price to the second equilibrium value, providing the service using the network slice in accordance with the network slice specification. (See para 0182- The communication network 110 may be a network according to a fifth generation (5G) according to a further generation. The controller 221 may grant the selected network entity 121 access 124 with preferential treatment to at least one network resource of a network slice of the communication network. ) (See para 0298-The bidding process 2700 includes a first step 2701: Charging party determines chargeable resources that are subject of capacity brokering architecture where resources are granted depending on bids offered, ) This shows granting service based on bids.
Reith 358 and Reith 008 are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area of network slice bidding and both belong to classification G06Q30. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Reith 358's invention by incorporating the method of Reith 0008 because Reith 358 can also implement ranking the different bids with respect to classes. This way, the brokering system would be able to see who are the high class bidders and the low class bidders. This would make it easier to filter out bids that are nowhere near the asking price for the slice owner. This also makes the system of Reith 358 more sophisticated since it is adding another analyzing step after receiving bids.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Reith 358 and Reith 008 teach the limitations of claim 1 and 9, however Reith 358 further teaches
wherein the performance requirement includes at least one of: a maximum number of subscribers, a maximum throughput per subscriber, a maximum number of traffic flows per subscriber, a guaranteed end-to-end latency, or a guaranteed radio access network (RAN) latency. (See para 0018- n an implementation form of the network resources brokering system, the at least one network resource is a radio access network (RAN) resource and the brokering entity is configured to grant access to the RAN resource) (See para 0088- The brokering entity 120 may select the network entity 121 prior to a start of the charging period 125. The one or more network resources 111, 112, 113 may be radio access network (RAN) resources, for example and the brokering entity 120 may grant access 124 to the RAN resource.) The RAN corresponds to the network slice that is granted to the bidder. This is guaranteed if the bidder is the highest bidder who wins access.
Regarding claims 8 and 13, Reith 358 and Reith 008 teach the limitations of claim 1 and 9, however Reith 008 further teaches
wherein the operations further comprise: instantiating a virtual machine at a cloud location based on the first equilibrium value. (See para 0050- In an implementation form of the network resources brokering system, the chargeable resource is a QoS differentiated compute unit provided by a virtual machine ) (See para 0090- a network service function in a cloudlet infrastructure that is located close to the user in order to minimize access latency.) This teaches the chargeable resource can be represented by a virtual machine at a cloud location for the highest bidder to use through the cloud. This is based on the bidding which takes into account the equilibrium price/value (i.e. minimum price).
Reith 358 and Reith 008 are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area of network slice bidding and both belong to classification G06Q30. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Reith 358's invention by incorporating the method of Reith 0008 because Reith 358 can also implement ranking the different bids with respect to classes. This way, the brokering system would be able to see who are the high class bidders and the low class bidders. This would make it easier to filter out bids that are nowhere near the asking price for the slice owner. This also makes the system of Reith 358 more sophisticated since it is adding another analyzing step after receiving bids.
Regarding claim 12, Reith 358 and Reith 008 teach the limitations of claim 9, however Reith 008 further teaches
wherein the first equilibrium value is determined based on at least one of: a time of day, a location, or a change in demand associated with a special event or an emergency. (See para 0006- The invention is based on the idea to introduce dynamic pricing to the process of price definition for chargeable consumption units that get consumed during a charging period. ) (See para 0290- representing all wholesale customers of the operator bidding the price that the operator demands in his time of day dependent wholesale tariff, which may for include a higher bid for the business hours of the weekdays and a lower bid for the evening hours, and an even lower bid for the night-time hours and for the weekend hours.) This teaches the minimum price will be high for normal business hours and lower for evening hours, because the charging party wants different bid types for different times of the data.
Reith 358 and Reith 008 are analogous art because they are from the same problem solving area of network slice bidding and both belong to classification G06Q30. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Reith 358's invention by incorporating the method of Reith 0008 because Reith 358 can also implement ranking the different bids with respect to classes. This way, the brokering system would be able to see who are the high class bidders and the low class bidders. This would make it easier to filter out bids that are nowhere near the asking price for the slice owner. This also makes the system of Reith 358 more sophisticated since it is adding another analyzing step after receiving bids.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Eriksson (US20190037398A1) who teaches EPC (i.e. Evolved Packet Core).
Yenisetty (US20170039633A1) who teaches historical auction data and historical item listing to determine a price.
Zhou (US20080125122A1) who teaches updating prices based on amount of demand and supply resources
Hudson (US20150287132A1) who teaches modifying auction parameters if an equilibrium price (i.e. reserve price) is not met.
Sciancalepore (US20180317133A1) who teaches service level agreements in connection to a network slice
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights