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 .
The amendment filed on July 15, 2025 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 15, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-3, 15, and 20, “the plurality of capture modules” (e.g., claim 1, line 6) is a singular form and not a plural form.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: capture module(s) (e.g., claims 1-4, 7, 12-17, and 20-22), programmable logic device (claim 15), rule-checker module (e.g., claims 6, 12-14, 18, 21, 22).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, “the configuration of the plurality of capture modules is downloaded from the GUI to the plurality of capture modules as a bit-file for programming the FPGA” is not described by the original disclosure. For instance, the original specification discloses “the user can select the type and number of capture modules to program into the logic device prior to downloading the bit-file for programming the FPGA” (paragraph 00116). However, paragraph 00116 does not specify that “the configuration of the plurality of capture modules is downloaded from the GUI to the plurality of capture modules”. The configuration is not disclosed to be from the GUI to the capture modules.
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.
Claims 20-22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 20, “all aspects” (line 16) are indefinite because “all” does not represent a definite quantity. How many aspects are there in “all aspects”? Examiner interprets “all aspects” to mean plural “aspects” and recommends deleting “all”.
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 2019/0354453) in view of Hsu et al. (US 2019/0278645).
Regarding claim 15, Hsu et al. (‘453) discloses an apparatus for diagnosing a cause of failure using automated test equipment (ATE) (Abstract), the apparatus comprising:
a programmable logic device (495) communicatively coupled to a device under test (DUT) (496’s) operable to generate commands and data for executing a test on the DUT (Fig. 4; Abstract, lines 7-9), and wherein the programmable logic device (495) comprises a plurality of programmable capture modules (450’s) operable to monitor data traffic between the DUT (496’s) and the programmable logic device (495) (Abstract, lines 2-5) and to selectively capture data traffic (Abstract, lines 9-11), wherein the plurality of programmable capture modules comprise a plurality of types and are configured using a plurality of stages (paragraph 0070, lines 1-3), and wherein the flow of traffic between the DUT and the programmable logic device is processed through the plurality of stages (paragraph 0069; 450’s, 451’s, 452A, Fig. 4); and
a system controller (system controller, paragraph 0008, lines 7-9, 13-16) executing a monitoring application (Abstract, lines 2-11) operable to provide a graphical user interface (GUI) and configured to control aspects of test flow of the test on the DUT (paragraph 0044, lines 1-9) and provide a user information pertaining to test results of the test on the DUT in a structured and prescribed fashion (paragraph 0085, lines 2-5) including:
based on input, program the plurality of programmable capture modules to
selective capture traffic data between the DUT and the programmable logic device (paragraph 0008, lines 7-9; 13-20);
configure analysis modules for corresponding programmable capture modules
to analyze the selectively captured traffic data to generate test result data (paragraph 0065, lines 12-14),
display the results in a structured fashion through the on-screen displays of the GUI (paragraph 0085, lines 1-5; organize data and displaying the root cause of the error, paragraph 0066, lines 14-18) and displaying causes of the issues and failures (paragraph 0073, lines 7-9).
However, Hsu et al. (‘453) does not expressly disclose based on user input, configure the plurality of programmable capture modules.
Hsu et al. (‘453) discloses programming tests of DUT’s (load test programs and run tests for the DUTs, paragraph 0044, lines 3-5) via a plurality of capture modules (450’s, 451’s, 452A, Fig. 4) in the programmable logic device (495) using input received from a graphical user interface (GUI) (paragraph 0044, lines 7-8) associated with the monitoring application (GUI of system controller, Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to program the plurality of capture modules (450’s, 451’s, 452A, Fig. 4) in the programmable logic device (495, Fig. 4; Abstract, lines 5-8), using input received from the graphical user interface (GUI) (paragraph 0044, lines 7-8) associated with the monitoring application (GUI of system controller, Fig. 3), for programming tests of the DUT’s.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Hsu et al. (‘453) with configuring the plurality of capture modules in the programmable logic device, using input received from the graphical user interface (GUI) associated with the monitoring application, as suggested by Hsu et al. (‘453) for the purpose of programming tests of the DUT’s.
Hsu et al. (‘453) further does not disclose generating test result data including types of issues and failures, time associated with the issues and failures, and causes of the issues and failures; and display the test result data including the types of issues and
failures, time associated with the issues and failures.
Hsu et al. (‘645) discloses displaying the test result data (via snap log, paragraph 0064, lines 5-8; paragraph 0011; Fig. 2) including the types of issues and failures (paragraph 0064, lines 5-8), time associated with the issues and failures (paragraph 0064, line 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Hsu et al. (‘453) with displaying/generating test result data including the types of issues and failures, time associated with the issues and failures as suggested by Hsu et al. (‘645) for the purpose of displaying more detailed information including causes of the issues and failures of the DUT’s (paragraph 0064, line 8).
Regarding claim 17, Hsu et al. (‘453) discloses each stage of the plurality of stages is configured to comprise one or more of the plurality of programmable capture modules (stage 1: 450’s; stage 2: 451’s; stage 3: 452A, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Hsu et al. (‘453) discloses the analysis modules for corresponding
programmable capture modules (paragraph 0073, lines 4-5) are further configured to:
analyze the test result data by implementing a rule-checker module operable to parse the data traffic and execute a set of rules on the data traffic to identity error conditions (paragraph 0073, lines 5-9).
Claim 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (‘453) in view of Hsu et al. (‘645) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Wu (US 2017/0132055).
Regarding claim 19, Hsu et al. (‘453) discloses
analyze the test result data to automatically identify an error in the test result data (paragraph 0071, lines 7-10);
report a condition associated with the error to a user by rendering an on-screen display through the GUI (paragraph 0066, lines 1-5, 17-18).
However, Hsu et al. (‘453) as modified does not disclose
identifying an error signature in the results, wherein the error signature comprises a particular pattern in the data traffic;
reporting a condition associated with the error signature to a user by rendering an on-screen display through the GUI.
Wu et al. discloses identifying an error signature in the results, wherein the error signature comprises a particular pattern in the data traffic (paragraph 0031, lines 1-4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious over Hsu et al. (‘453) in view of Wu et al. to report a condition associated with the error signature to a user by rendering an on-screen display through the GUI.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Hsu et al. (‘453) as modified with identifying an error signature in the results, wherein the error signature comprises a particular pattern in the data traffic as disclosed by Wu et al. for the purpose of reporting a condition associated with the error signature to a user by rendering an on-screen display through the GUI.
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 2019/0354453) in view of Khor et al. (US 2008/0104143).
Regarding claim 20, Hsu et al. (‘453) discloses a tester (Abstract; Fig. 4) comprising:
a system controller (system controller, paragraph 0008, lines 7-9, 13-16) for controlling a test program for testing a plurality of DUTs (paragraph 0044, lines 1-9);
a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) (495) operable to interface with and test the plurality of DUTs (496’s) (Fig. 4), wherein the FPGA (495) comprises a plurality of capture modules (450’s), wherein the plurality of capture modules comprise different types and are programmed on the FPGA and operable to monitor data traffic between the plurality of DUTs and the FPGA (capture modules 450’s, 451’s, 452A perform different respective analysis at different stages, Fig. 4), wherein the plurality of capture modules are operable to selectively capture data traffic wherein the plurality of capture modules are configured using a plurality of stages (paragraph 0070, lines 1-3), and wherein the flow of traffic between the plurality of DUTs and the FPGA is processed through the plurality of stages (paragraph 0069; 450’s, 451’s, 452A, Fig. 4); and
a system controller (system controller, paragraph 0008, lines 7-9, 13-16) for controlling a test program for testing a plurality of DUTs (paragraph 0044, lines 1-9), the system controller executing a monitoring application (Abstract, lines 2-11) operable to implement a graphical user interface (GUI) (paragraph 0044, lines 1-9) and configured to:
based on user input, program the plurality of capture modules (provides
the user with a graphical user interface from which to configure and control the tests, paragraph 0044, lines 3-8), wherein the GUI is operable to accept user input to program
the capture modules in the programmable logic device (provides a user interface for the user of the ATE to load the test programs and run tests for the DUTs connected to the ATE 300, paragraph 0044, lines 3-5) to collect all aspects of a test flow of the test of the plurality of DUTs and from various points in the tester (logs test results, paragraph 0044, lines 5-11);
configure analysis modules for corresponding capture modules to
analyze the selectively captured data traffic by using different types of analysis on results from different types of the plurality of capture modules (capture modules 450’s, 451’s, 452A perform different respective analysis at different stages, Fig. 4); and
display results of the analysis of the selectively captured data traffic on the GUI in a structured fashion (paragraph 0085, lines 1-5; organize data, paragraph 0066, lines 14-18).
However, Hsu et al. (‘453) does not disclose display results of the analysis of the selectively captured data traffic on the GUI to allow the user to add, delete, modify or save the detected suspect conditions and performs further analysis.
Khor et al. discloses the GUI (oscilloscope 2, paragraph 0016, line 8) analyzes test data (test results, paragraph 0016, line 10, test results are analyzed test data) to detect suspect conditions in the plurality of DUT (18) (implied by testing of DUT 18, paragraph 0018, line 1, to obtain test results, where there are plural DUTs, paragraph 0021, line 15), displays the analyzed test data in a structured fashion (44, Fig. 2) to allow the user to save the detected suspect conditions (paragraph 0019, lines 1-4) and performs further analysis (oscilloscope performs further DUT tests, paragraph 0021, lines 13-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Hsu et al. (‘453) with a GUI as disclosed by Khor et al. for the purposes of controlling testing DUTs and storing test results.
Regarding claim 22, Hsu et al. (453) discloses the plurality of capture modules comprises a Link Training Status State Machine (LTSSM) module type (paragraph 0076, lines 1-3), and wherein the analyzing further comprises:
configuring a rule-checker module in the monitoring application to check rules associated with the LTSSM module type (paragraph 0076, lines 1-15), wherein the rule- checker module comprises one or more rules (paragraph 0073, lines 1-3); and
flagging an error to a user through the GUI in response to a rule violation (flagging error condition, paragraph 0072, lines 6-7) associated with the rule-checker module (paragraph 0071, lines 8-10; paragraph 0072, lines 6-9; paragraph 0086).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (‘453) in view of Khor et al. as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view Hsu et al. (US 2019/0278645).
Regarding claim 21, Hsu et al. (‘453) discloses the plurality of capture modules comprises a Transaction Layer Packet (TLP) capture module type (paragraph 0075, lines 1-3), and the monitoring application is further configured to:
flag an error to a user through the GUI in response to a rule violation associated with the rule-checker module (flagging error condition, paragraph 0071, lines 8-10; paragraph 0072, lines 6-9).
However, Hsu et al. (‘453) as modified by Khor et al. does not disclose configuring a rule-checker module in the monitoring application to check rules associated with the TLP capture module type, wherein the rule-checker module comprises one or more rules.
Hsu et al. (‘645) discloses configuring a rule-checker module in the monitoring application to check rules associated with the TLP capture module type (configure processor that uses rule-checker module to analyze TLP log, paragraph 0065, lines 13-14), wherein the rule-checker module comprises one or more rules (paragraph 0065, lines 12-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Hsu et al. (‘453) as modified with configuring a rule-checker module as disclosed by Hsu et al. (‘645) for the purpose of ascertaining a root cause of failure.
Prior Art Note
Claims 1-14 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a method for diagnosing a cause of failure using automated test equipment (ATE) comprising the configuration of the plurality of capture modules is downloaded from the GUI to the plurality of capture modules as a bit-file for programming the FPGA (claim 1) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
The amendment and arguments filed on July 15, 2025 has been considered.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
With regard to the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f), Applicants argue “claim limitations “capture modules” in Claims 1-4, 7, 12-17 and 20-22, and “programmable logic device” in Claim 15, recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).”
Examiner’s position is that claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) is not a rejection. Since “modules” and “device” are non-structural generic placeholders (according to MPEP 2181(I)(A)), they merely invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (i.e., the claim limitations are to be interpreted in light of the specification), pursuant to MPEP 2181(I)(A). Applicants may amend the claim limitations so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) of “all aspects” in claim 20, Applicants argue “the term “all” has the ordinary and plaining meaning of every, or similarly any whatsoever, and therefore is clearly definite in reciting that it is “all aspects.””
Examiner’s position is that “all aspects” (claim 20) are indefinite because “all” does not represent a definite quantity. How many aspects are there in “all aspects”? Examiner interprets “all aspects” to mean plural “aspects” and recommends deleting “all”.
Applicant’s remaining amendments and arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The remaining rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 of claims 1-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 103 of claims 1-4 have been withdrawn.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 103 of claims 15 and 17-22, Applicants argue, regarding claim 15, “Hsu does not teaches or suggest a plurality of capture modules and corresponding analysis modules wherein the corresponding analysis modules analyze the traffic data collected by the capture modules.” Examiner’s position is that Hsu (‘453) teaches a plurality of programmable capture modules (450’s) and analysis modules for analyzing the captured traffic data to generate test result data (paragraph 0065, lines 12-14).
Applicants further argue “Hsu also does not teach or suggest corresponding analysis modules to generate test result data include the type of issues and failures, time associate with the issues and failures, and causes of the issues and failures. Likewise, Hsu also does not teach or suggest displaying the test result data including the type of issues and failures, time associate with the issues and failures, and causes of the issues and failures in the GUI, as recited in amended Claim 15.
Examiner’s position is that the above limitations would have been obvious in view of Hsu (‘645). Hsu et al. (‘645) discloses displaying the test result data (via snap log, paragraph 0064, lines 5-8; paragraph 0011; Fig. 2) including the types of issues
and failures (paragraph 0064, lines 5-8), time associated with the issues and failures (paragraph 0064, line 5).
Applicants argue, regarding claim 20, “Hsu does not teaches or suggest a plurality of capture modules and corresponding analysis modules wherein the corresponding analysis modules analyze the traffic data collected by the capture modules.”
Examiner’s position is that Hsu (‘453) discloses a plurality of capture modules (450’s), wherein the plurality of capture modules comprise different types and are programmed on the FPGA and operable to monitor data traffic between the plurality of DUTs and the FPGA (capture modules 450’s, 451’s, 452A perform different respective analysis at different stages, Fig. 4) and analysis modules for corresponding capture
modules to analyze the selectively captured data traffic by using different types of analysis on results from different types of the plurality of capture modules (capture modules 450’s, 451’s, 452A perform different respective analysis at different stages, Fig. 4).
Applicant’s remaining arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are traversed in view of the discussions and rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Frediani et al. (CN 105144114) discloses an automated test equipment comprises a plurality of modules for testing DUTs and coupled to a plurality of configurable blocks (Abstract). Frediani et al. further discloses initialization settings may include from the configured in the library of protocol available on the FPGA device in ATE device 200 selecting one or more protocols. The protocols of the system controller 301 is cached as a file, and can be used as a bit file is downloaded to the FPGA. User can select protocol from the list of available versions via a graphical user
Interface (page 10, last paragraph – page 11, paragraph 1).
However, Frediani et al. does not disclose the configuration blocks are
downloaded from the GUI to a plurality of capture modules as bit-files for
programming the FPGA.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 October 11, 2025