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 .
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 1/30/2026.
Claims 1, 7, 15 were amended.
Claims 19-20 were added.
No claims were cancelled.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 14-20 are pending
This action is made final.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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: “an execution unit configured to …” and “a processing unit configured to …” in claim 1.
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.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Jablokov et al(US Patent Application Publication US 2018/0321652, which has a publication date of 11/08/2018), referred to as Jablokov herein.
Beckman (US Patent Application Publication US 2014/0265577A1, which has a publication date of 09/18/2014), referred to as Beckman herein.
Colling (US Patent Application Publication US 2020/0134950A1, which has a priority date of 06/26/2017), referred to as Colling herein.
Derickson (US Patent Application Publication US 20200242902 A1, which has a priority date of 01/25/2019), referred to as Derickson herein.
Tran et al., (US Patent Application Publication US 20200101367 A1), referred to as Tran herein.
Shmidt, How a quantum computer works – DW, captured from https://www.dw.com/en/how-a-quantum-computer-works/a-50969000, 10/24/2019, referred to as Shmidt herein.
Haraldsson, What is the smallest CPU currently - Quora, captured from https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-smallest-CPU-currently/answer/P%C3%A1ll-Haraldsson?encoded_access_token=f6ced2cc00d641e080ebc57fe0341c47&force_dialog=1&provider=google, 2018, referred to as Haraldsson herein.
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) 1-2, 8 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman in view of Colling.
Regarding independent claim 1, Beckman discloses “Electrical equipment comprising a housing and serving as power distribution equipment provided on a power supply channel ([0055] FIG. 4 is a front view of an exemplary control unit 401, shown mounted on, and able to receive and control, among other things, electrical power from, a socket of an electrical outlet, such as duplex outlet 402… Control unit 401 further comprises an auxiliary power outlet socket 411, on the front face of the housing 400 of control unit 401. In the embodiment pictured, socket 411 is recessed into the housing 400, reducing the space occupied by a power plug, when installed into socket 411. A ramped bevel 412 transitioning between housing 400 and the socket 411, recessed within it, may ease the act of inserting a power plug into socket 411.), the electrical equipment further comprising:
an execution unit configured to control an appliance to be electrically connected to the electrical equipment ([0059] In addition to sensing appliance indicators and power-related controls via sensors or other condition-ascertaining hardware, control unit 401 may also employ an RF (radio frequency or other wireless communications) antenna, or other wireless communications hardware. In some embodiments, such wireless communications hardware may ascertain or intercept, and be programmable to ascertain or intercept, signals affecting the power status of an appliance controlled by the control unit (such as an appliance remote control or local network signal to switch off or switch on the appliance)); and
a processing unit configured to perform information processing related to the appliance ([0059] In addition to sensing appliance indicators and power-related controls via sensors or other condition-ascertaining hardware, control unit 401 may also employ an RF (radio frequency or other wireless communications) antenna, or other wireless communications hardware. In some embodiments, such wireless communications hardware may ascertain or intercept, and be programmable to ascertain or intercept, signals affecting the power status of an appliance controlled by the control unit (such as an appliance remote control or local network signal to switch off or switch on the appliance)),
the execution unit and the processing unit being held by the housing ([0099] FIG. 23 is a schematic block diagram of some elements of an exemplary control system 2300 that may be used in accordance with aspects of the present invention, such as, but not limited to, monitoring indication, actuation and operational conditions of appliances, and controlling the provision of power and other electrical characteristics through hardware and peripheral devices of a control unit… Among other components, the system 2300 includes an input/output device 2301, a memory device 2303, storage media and/or hard disk recorder and/or cloud storage port or connection device 2305, and a processor or processors 2307. The processor(s) 2307 is (are) capable of receiving, interpreting, processing and manipulating signals and executing instructions for further processing and for output, pre-output or storage in and outside of the system. The processor(s) 2307 may be general or multipurpose, single- or multi-threaded, and may have a single core or several processor cores, including, but not limited to, microprocessors.),
the execution unit being configured to control the appliance based on a result of the information processing performed by the processing unit ([0099] . Alternatively, or in addition, the system, using processors 2307 and input/output devices 2319, 2321 and/or 2323, may accept and exert passive and other physical (e.g., tactile) user, power supply, appliance operation, user activity, circuit and environmental input (e.g., from sensors) and output.).”
Beckman discloses the housing providing an interface for user interaction (see figure 4 and 23). However, Beckman failed to specifically disclose
The processing unit is configured to perform authentication, the authentication including authenticating identification information of a user of the electrical equipment or identification information of the appliance by using authentication data and the processing unit is configured to perform the information processing when the authentication is succeeds.
Colling, in the same field of smart power supply outlets discloses The processing unit is configured to perform authentication, ([0089] Each security cover 100 houses a switch 6 (FIG. 5) and includes an authorisation device 15 (such as a fingerprint identifier, facial recognition device, key fob or card) for enabling an authorised person to control a power supply, via the switch 6, to an electrical device or appliance.);
the processing unit is configured to perform the information processing when the authentication is succeeds. ([0126] The authorisation signal is indicative of a biometric input, such as fingerprint from finger 550. The authorisation signal is sent to a comparator 600 which compares the authorisation signal indicative of finger 550 with a library of characteristics stored in a memory 700 in order to indicate a match. When the comparator 600 indicates a match an authentication signal is used to generate a command signal to switch 800 which enables input current (I.sub.IN) to flow through switch 800 and flow as output current I.sub.OUT) from the switch 800).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the processing unit of Beckman to configure it to perform authentication, including the authentication authenticating identification information of a user of the electrical equipment and to configure it to perform the information processing when the authentication is succeeds as disclosed by Colling. The motivation for doing so would have been such that only authorized staff or management or parents, are able to grant access to a power supply for one or more selected devices and appliances, thus increasing safety and security(0019).
Beckman and Colling disclose the electrical equipment may also employ an RF (radio frequency or other wireless communications) antenna, or other wireless communications hardware and be programmable to ascertain or intercept, signals affecting the power status of an appliance controlled by the control unit (such as an appliance remote control or local network signal to switch off or switch on the appliance)) (Colling, [0059]). However, Beckman and Colling failed to specifically disclose the electrical equipment is configured to transmit data to the appliance, so that one or more functions of the appliance are controlled in accordance with the data, the control of the appliance being performed based on the result of the information processing.
Jablokov, in the same field of an appliance management system discloses this limitation in that [[0124] In FIG. 3A, appliance assistant 310 is connected to power source 101 and appliance 102, as described above. Appliance assistant 310 may have any of the components and functionality of appliance assistant 110 or appliance assistant 210, and may have additional components and functionality. [0132] Command module 330 may include buttons or other inputs that that provide other functionality. The other functionality may be provided by the manufacturer or the buttons may be programmed by a user to implement desired functionality. In some implementations, buttons may be programmed using techniques similar to technology provided by IFTTT (if this then that). For example, buttons may be programmed to take certain actions based on inputs from other sources (e.g., email or information available on the Internet) or the states of other devices (e.g., other devices in the house) and then use that information to determine an action to be performed].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the processing unit of Beckman and Colling to configure it to transmit data to the appliance, so that one or more functions of the appliance are controlled in accordance with the data, the control of the appliance being performed based on the result of the information processing as disclosed by Jablokov. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide additional convenience, safety, and functionality of conventional appliances(0005).
Independent claim 15 is directed towards an appliance management method to an electrical equipment found in claim 1, and is therefore similarly rejected.
Independent claim 16 is directed towards a non-transitory storage medium equivalent to an electrical equipment found in claim 1, and is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 2, Beckman, Colling and Jablokov disclose all the limitations of independent claim 1. Beckman further teaches “further comprising a communications unit held by the housing and configured to be ready to communicate with a high-order system (Examiner notes that “a high-order system” is interpreted as a cloud data center as described at par. 41 of original specification. Beckman at ¶¶ ([0099] among other components, the system 2300 includes an input/output device 2301, a memory device 2303, storage media and/or hard disk recorder and/or cloud storage port or connection device 2305, and a processor or processors 2307. The processor(s) 2307 is (are) capable of receiving, interpreting, processing and manipulating signals and executing instructions for further processing and for output, pre-output or storage in and outside of the system [0102] connection device 2305 is capable of providing mass storage for the system, and may be a computer-readable medium, may be a connected mass storage device (e.g., flash drive or other drive connected to a U.S.B. port or Wi-Fi) may use back-end (with or without middle-ware) or cloud storage over a network (e.g., the internet) as either a memory backup for an internal mass storage device or as a primary memory storage means, and/or may be an internal mass storage device, such as a computer hard drive or optical drive.).”
Regarding claim 8, Beckman, Colling and Jablokov disclose all the limitations of independent claim 1. Beckman further teaches “wherein the housing has dimensions defined by a standard for the power distribution equipment (see fig. 4-5, standard outlet socket).
Regarding independent claim 14, Beckman, Colling and Jablokov teach all the limitations of independent claim 1. Beckman further discloses “each of the multiple pieces of the electrical equipment further including a cooperating communications unit held by the housing, the respective cooperating communications units of the multiple pieces of the electrical equipment being configured to communicate with each other ([0115] For example, control unit 401 set forth in FIG. 4 may comprise a wireless network antenna (such as a near-field communications or Bluetooth antenna) rather than or in addition to hard wiring 413, for communications, commands and power transmission between a peripheral device. To carry the example further, control unit 401 may be comprised within, and part of, outlet 402, which then becomes an outlet/control unit. In such instance, the controls and display aspects may be present on the coverplate of outlet 402, rather than on the housing of unit 401, which would then be omitted, or, as discussed immediately below, omitted altogether in favor of wireless or other control by an external computing device, such as a PDA, networked with the outlet/control unit.)
Regarding independent claim 17, Beckman, Colling and Jablokov teach all the limitations of independent claim 1. Beckman further discloses “wherein the execution unit is further configured to perform monitoring the appliance based on the result of the information processing performed by the processing unit” ([0120] For example, a control system connected to and controlling device 2401 of FIG. 24 may issue signals to device 2401 causing it to actuate a main power button of an appliance (on which device 2401 is installed) to instigate such a shut-down routine in the appliance. Furthermore, the control system may monitor and confirm the shutdown status of the appliance prior to ending the provision of power to it, in step 2815, for example, by sensing when a standby/power indicator light indicates such a shutdown status with, for example, a light sensor, such as sensor 2415.).
Regarding independent claim 18, which depends on claim 15, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 17 above.
Regarding claim 19, Beckman, Colling and Jablokov it is rejected under the same rationale as independent claim 1. Colling further teaches “wherein the authentication includes authenticating identification information of a user of the electrical equipment or identification information of the appliance by using the authentication data ([0089] Each security cover 100 houses a switch 6 (FIG. 5) and includes an authorisation device 15 (such as a fingerprint identifier, facial recognition device, key fob or card) for enabling an authorised person to control a power supply, via the switch 6, to an electrical device or appliance.);
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 19 above.
Claim(s) 3-4, 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman, Colling and Jablokov in view of Derickson.
Regarding claim 3, Beckman, Colling and Jablokov teach all the limitations of independent claim 1 and its dependent claim 2. Beckman, Colling and Jablokov failed to disclose the limitations of claim 3.
However, Derickson, in the same field of smart power supplies discloses “wherein the communications unit is configured to receive, from the high-order system, a learned model generated by the high-order system through machine learning, and the processing unit is configured to perform the information processing by using the learned model (Derickson, at ¶¶ [0084]-[0087], build and improve statistical models using machine learning, and the training system provide the final set of model parameter values by a wired or wireless connection to the central monitoring system.).”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the communication unit of Beckman, Colling and Jablokov to receive, from the high-order system, a learned model generated by the high-order system through machine learning, and the processing unit is configured to perform the information processing by using the learned model as disclosed by Derickson. The motivation for doing so would have been to take advantage of generated machine learning models in order to automate the different processes, increasing efficiency.
Regarding claim 4, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above. Additionally, Beckman, Colling, Jablokov and Derickson teach all the limitations of independent claim 1 and its dependent claim 2 and 3. Beckman and Colling failed to disclose the limitations of claim 4. However, Derickson discloses “wherein the communications unit is configured to transmit, to the high-order system, learning data to be used by the high-order system for a purpose of the machine learning (Derickson, at Fig. 8, ¶¶ [0084] and [0086], A training engine analyzes an output (e.g., a floormap or an exit route) and compares the output to labels in the training examples that indicate target outputs for each training example. Considering the training examples come out of the training data and output, the training system is equivalent to the system improvement engine of Fig. 1, and the training data in the training system should be transmitted from the system 100 of the Fig. 1. As described at ¶ [0028], input to the improvement engine is the user presence information, floormap, and the fire indication information, which are sourced from the system 100 of Fig. 1.).”
Regarding claim 5, Beckman and Colling teach all the limitations of independent claim 1 and its dependent claim 2. Beckman, Colling and Jablokov failed to disclose the limitations of claim 5.
However, Derickson, in the same field of smart power supplies discloses “wherein the communications unit is configured to receive, from the high-order system, a control instruction instructing that the appliance be controlled, and the execution unit is configured to control the appliance in accordance with the control instruction (Derickson, at ¶ [0087], the training system provide a final set of parameter values to the central monitoring system 100 for use in generating a floormap or an exit route by a wired or wireless connection, and then, as described at ¶ [0030], modifying an egress plan for a building is implemented by the improvement engine.).”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the communication unit of Beckman, Colling and Jablokov to receive, from the high-order system, a control instruction instructing that the appliance be controlled, and the execution unit is configured to control the appliance in accordance with the control instruction as disclosed by Derickson. The motivation for doing so would have been to take advantage of generated machine learning models in order to automate the different processes, increasing efficiency.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman, Colling and Jablokov in view of Tran.
Regarding claim 7, Beckman, Colling and Jablokov teach all the limitations of independent claim 1. However, Beckman, Colling and Jablokov does not explicitly teach “wherein the processing unit is configured to function, in a blockchain having a plurality of nodes, as one of the plurality of nodes, and also configured to store, as transaction data, authentication data for use in the authentication.”
Tran is in the same field of smart device includes a microcontroller includes power management circuitry (Tran, at ¶ [0051]) that a distributed file storage system includes nodes are incentivized to store as much of the entire network's data as they can, and blockchain currency is awarded for storing files, in the course of ordinary operation of the storage network, nodes contribute useful work in the form of storage and distribution of valuable data, the method for accessing data comprising generating an authorization key for accessing the cloud server and storing the key in a blockchain (id. at ¶¶ [0094]-[0095]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of this application to modify Beckman, Colling and Jablokov equipment with storing data in a distributed file storage includes a plurality of noes, storing an authorization key in a blockchain for authentication as taught by Tran because it provides secure communications between IoT devices, which is useful for edge IoT devices (Tran, at ¶ [0089]).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckman, Colling and Jablokov in view of Haraldsson.
Regarding claim 9, Beckman, Colling and Jablokov teach all the limitations of independent claim 1. However, Beckman, Colling and Jablokov do not explicitly teach “wherein the processing unit is implemented as a processor of a chip size equal to or smaller than a virtual square, each side of which has a length of 300 µm.”
Haraldsson is in the same field of CPU or processor that describes the smallest computer, as of 2018, is a 0.04mm3, whereas the width and length may be 0.3 mm x 0.3 mm. Considering the size is a whole computer, the integrated Cortex-M0+ processor should be smaller than that, even smaller than the chip size of 0.15 mm x 0.15 mm as depicted in the picture (Haraldsson, at page 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of this application to combine Beckman, Colling and Jablokov’s electrical equipment could have a processor of a chip size equal to or smaller than a virtual square, each side of which has a length of 300 µm as taught by Haraldsson because medical application requires such small size for cellular temperature measurement (Haraldsson, at page 1).
Regarding claim 10, Beckman, Colling and Jablokov teach all the limitations of independent claim 1. However, Beckman, Colling and Jablokov do not explicitly teach “wherein the processing unit is implemented as a processor of a chip size equal to or smaller than a virtual square, each side of which has a length of 100 µm.”
Haraldsson is in the same field of CPU or processor that describes the smallest computer, as of 2018, is a 0.04mm3, whereas the width and length may be 0.3 mm x 0.3 mm. Considering the measured size is a whole computer, the integrated Cortex-M0+ processor should be smaller than that if remove the required electrical pad size, even much smaller than the chip size of 0.15 mm x 0.15 mm as depicted in the picture (Haraldsson, at page 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of this application to combine Beckman, Colling and Jablokov’s electrical equipment with a computer could have a processor of a chip size equal to or smaller than a virtual square, each side of which has a length of 100 µm as taught by Haraldsson because medical application requires such small size for cellular temperature measurement (Haraldsson, at page 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. Applicant arguments are directed towards newly added claim limitations which changed the scope of the claim and necessitated new grounds of rejection. Therefore, the Applicant arguments are now moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD CORTES whose telephone number is (571)270-1383. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Scott T Baderman can be reached on (571)272-3644. 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.
/HOWARD CORTES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118