Detailed Action
1. This communication is in response to RCE filed on December 4, 2025 in which claims 1-4, 8-11, 14, 17-20, 22, 25, 32 and 34-37 are pending in the application. Claims 1 and 22 are the independent claims.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
3. This Non-Final Rejection is in response to the applicant’s remarks and arguments filed via RCE on December 4, 2025.
Claims 1-3 and 22 were amended. Claims 1-4, 8-11, 14, 17-20, 22, 25, 32 and 34-37 remain pending in the application. Claims 4, 8-11, 14, 17-20, 25, 32 and 34-37 filed on July 30, 2025 are being considered on the merits along with amended claims 1-3 and 22.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed December 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102 section starting on page 10 of the Remarks from the Attorney, the Attorney respectfully submitted that the cited references, alone or in combination, fail to disclose amended claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Attorney’s assertion as claim 1 is rejected below in detail under section 5 in Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102. Following the amendments to claim 1 by the Applicant, the independent claim 1 remains rejected by Haghighat. The explanation of the rejection remains below and the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Attorney that Haghighat does not disclose the invention’s claimed limitations. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 22 remain rejected in this Non-Final Rejection following RCE. The amended claims do not overcome the rejections set forth below, so claims 1-4, 8-11, 14, 17-20, 22, 25, 32 and 34-37 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-2, 8-11, 14, 17-20, 22, 25, 32, and 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Haghighat et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0263779) – hereinafter “Haghighat”.
Regarding independent claim 1, Haghighat discloses a method performed by an entity for handling execution of functions in a function-as-a-service, FaaS, system, the FaaS system comprising one or more nodes on which functions are executable, the method comprising:
initiating, by the entity, movement of one or more functions of a group of functions to a single one of the one or more nodes such that each function of the group of functions executes on the single one of the one or more nodes … ([0407] “Furthermore, the invoker and batch balancer 1606 may identify latency constraints of particular functions associated with function requests 1604 and distribute the function requests 1604 to meet the latency constraints. A latency constraint may correspond to a requested time by which the function should complete execution. For example, shorter latency functions may be grouped together when the latency constraints permit and ordered such that all of the latency constraints for every function in the group are satisfied.” and [0422] “In some embodiments, some of the batchable functions may be executed simultaneously, and others of the batchable functions may be executed serially. In some embodiments, the container 1614a may execute a first group of the batchable functions, for example, a maximum number of batchable functions that may be supported by the resources of the container 1614a.”), The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the batchable functions are grouped together on the same node/container.
… wherein each function of the group accesses the same data as at least one other function of the group; ([0721] “Some embodiments of the enhanced FaaS system may identify functions that operate on the same data (e.g., which may otherwise be unrelated), and put the functions together in same location as the data. Some embodiments may determine metrics to identify whether to perform any merging/decomposition (e.g., minimum 5 minutes execution time for all functions).”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the functions access/operate on the same data as the other functions in the same location/group.
determining, after a timer signals that a predefined time period has elapsed since a grouping of the functions onto the single one of the one or more nodes, if during the predefined time period, a function of the group of functions fails to access the same data as at least one other function of the group; and ([0693] “For example, functions that use the same data (e.g., the same map, or streaming the same video, same computer language libraries etc.) may be identified as utilizing a same underlying common data set (e.g., shared information). The identified functions may be scheduled to execute in the same system (e.g., particular node) or the same pool of systems.” and [0950] “1b. Functions that have an overall high historical frequency of use but have already run out of their current pause rate threshold may be held over in an outer memory tier instead of being reclaimed immediately; and they may age there for a longer duration. The pause rate threshold may effectively be the time to live for a container of a function after its most recent use. If no request arrives over that time, the function may be removed so that its resources—mainly memory—get freed up.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the function running out of their current pause rate threshold/a timer signaling that a predefined time period has elapsed since grouping functions that access the same data on the same system leads to a function being removed from the group if it fails to access the same data as other functions due to a lack of request(s) arriving.
where the respective function has not accessed the same data as at least one other function of the group, removing the function from the group. ([0950] “1b. Functions that have an overall high historical frequency of use but have already run out of their current pause rate threshold may be held over in an outer memory tier instead of being reclaimed immediately; and they may age there for a longer duration. The pause rate threshold may effectively be the time to live for a container of a function after its most recent use. If no request arrives over that time, the function may be removed so that its resources—mainly memory—get freed up.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the function running out of their current pause rate threshold/a timer signaling that a predefined time period has elapsed since grouping functions that access the same data on the same system leads to a function being removed from the group if it fails to access the same data as other functions due to a lack of request(s) arriving.
Regarding claim 2, Haghighat discloses the method of claim 1, comprising grouping functions into a group of functions comprising one of:
creating the group of functions to be executed on the single one of the one or more nodes; and ([0406] “Turning now to FIG. 16A, an example 1600 is shown in which function requests 1604 are scheduled by invoker and batch balancer 1606 of a FaaS system, for example the FaaS system 400 of FIG. 4. The invoker and batch balancer 1606 may implement a batched implementation to reduce latency and enhance resource utilization. For example, some embodiments may identify first-N batchable function requests 1608a-1608n that each request execution of a batchable function. The first-N batchable function requests 1608a-1608n may be batched together, and anticipatorily scheduled so that the batchable functions execute in a same container 1614a, rather than in different containers.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the group of functions is created by the invoker and batch balancer that groups the batchable functions together and places them on the same node/container.
assigning at least one function to an existing group of functions to be executed on the single one of the one or more nodes.
Regarding claim 8, Haghighat discloses the method of claim 1 comprising:
in response to an update to the information, updating the grouping based on the updated information. ([0888] “The dataset construct includes several fields. The attributes of the fields may be generated on function creation as well as updated dynamically based on the function execution and a level of cache/memory thrashing. Based on the data touched during the function execution, gathered from the function construct 3300, a function associated with the function construct 3300 may be assigned to a container which is likely to possess a warm copy of the data thereby reducing data movement and reducing the possibility of thrashing.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the information updated based on function execution will lead to updating the function groups/assigning functions to a different container.
Regarding claim 9, Haghighat discloses the method of claim 1 wherein:
each function is grouped into the group of functions with one or more triggers, wherein the function is executable in response to the one or more triggers. ([0289] “The first trigger of the trigger queue 1220 may include triggering the first function (e.g., function Y) from the function queue 1216. Thus, when the network or storage operation P completes, the system may determine from the events queue 1218 that the first event has occurred (e.g., completion of the network or storage operation P), to cause execution of the first trigger from the trigger queue 1220 to execute. The first trigger may then cause one or more functions (e.g., Function Y) from the function queue 1216 to execute.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the triggers in the trigger queue trigger the functions in the function queue to execute. Triggers can also cause more than one function to execute such as a group of functions in the function queue.
Regarding claim 10, Haghighat discloses the method of claim 1 wherein:
the data accessed by each function of the group of functions to be executed on the single one of the one or more nodes is stored on the single one of the one or more nodes. ([0218] “In some embodiments, shared memory 843 may provide a way of communication by letting the two functions 841, 842 share a memory segment for copying the content of data exchanged between the two functions 841, 842.” and Fig. 19A showing Common Data Storage 1910) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the data accessed by each function of the group of functions is stored in the shared memory that is accessed by the functions 841, 842 in the group of functions.
Regarding claim 11, Haghighat discloses the method of claim 1 wherein:
generating information indicative of the group of functions, the information indicative of the group of functions comprising, a graph in which each function of the group of functions to be executed on the single one of the one or more nodes is connected to data that the function accesses during execution of the function (Fig. 8G and [0220] “Because F4, F5, and F6 are co-located on the same server 864, some embodiments may advantageously utilize shared memory on the server 864 to facilitate the collaboration among F4, F5, and F6. Some embodiments may utilize a graph based representation of what functions are running on what servers for better bin packing and/or locality optimization. Some embodiments may also utilize a graph based representation of cross function communication patterns. For example, call chains across nodes may be shared as a graph based representation.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the graph based representation of the functions in the group of functions shows the cross function communication patterns/data access connections based on locality optimization.
Regarding claim 14, Haghighat discloses the method of claim 1 comprising:
if a load generated by execution of at least one function of the group of functions is greater than an available capacity of the single one of the one or more nodes: ([0463] “For example, the original function 1712 may not dispatch if the original function 1712 exceeds available resources (e.g., dynamic restrictions on memory). Further, the original function 1712 may not dispatch in a timely fashion, or once dispatched, it may unclear whether the original function 1712 will complete execution within the permitted time limit.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the function may exceed available resources/generate a load greater than available capacity.
initiating generation of a replica of the at least one function to be executed on another one of the one or more nodes. (Fig. 17A and [0465] “As discussed below, the orchestrator 1704 may mitigate the possibility of non-completion or delayed completion by redundant function execution across multiple compute nodes 1706a-1706c. For example, redundant functions 1708a, 1708b of the original function 1712 may be spawned and execute at different nodes 1706a, 1706b.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the replica/redundant functions 1708a, 1708b of the original function 1712 are spawned/generated to be executed across multiple compute nodes 1706a-1706c.
Regarding claim 17, Haghighat discloses the method of claim 14 comprising:
initiating generation of a replica of each function of the group of functions to be executed on the another one of the one or more nodes. ([0434] “In some embodiments, first-N batchable function requests 1608a-1608n may be divided into two or more groups by the invoker and batch balancer 1606 according to the latency constraints. For example, the first-N batchable function requests 1608a-1608n may be divided so that a first group has the strongest latency constraints, a second group has the next strongest latency constraints and so on.” and [0474] “In some embodiments, the redundant functions 1708a, 1708b may be scheduled to execute only if the original function 1712 fails to complete execution. For example, the orchestrator 1704 may determine that the original function 1712 has failed to complete execution and meets the quality threshold. Therefore, the orchestrator 1704 may determine that that multiple redundant copies of the original function 1712 should be spawned as redundant functions 1708a, 1708b to mitigate a second non-completion occurrence.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the replica/redundant functions 1708a, 1708b of the original function 1712 are spawned/generated to be executed across multiple compute nodes 1706a-1706c and this can take place for each batchable function in the group of functions.
Regarding claim 18, Haghighat discloses the method of claim 14 comprising:
execution of the replica of each function of the group of functions is in response to a corresponding trigger on the single one of the one or more nodes. ([0474] “In some embodiments, the redundant functions 1708a, 1708b may be scheduled to execute only if the original function 1712 fails to complete execution. For example, the orchestrator 1704 may determine that the original function 1712 has failed to complete execution and meets the quality threshold. Therefore, the orchestrator 1704 may determine that that multiple redundant copies of the original function 1712 should be spawned as redundant functions 1708a, 1708b to mitigate a second non-completion occurrence.” and [0289] “The first trigger of the trigger queue 1220 may include triggering the first function (e.g., function Y) from the function queue 1216. Thus, when the network or storage operation P completes, the system may determine from the events queue 1218 that the first event has occurred (e.g., completion of the network or storage operation P), to cause execution of the first trigger from the trigger queue 1220 to execute. The first trigger may then cause one or more functions (e.g., Function Y) from the function queue 1216 to execute.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the triggers in the trigger queue trigger the functions in the function queue to execute. Triggers can also cause more than one function to execute such as a group of functions in the function queue like the redundant functions/replica of each function.
Regarding claim 19, Haghighat discloses the method of claim 18 wherein:
the trigger provides a token, ([1078] “In one example, the monitor logic 4408 is part of a hardware scheduler, which selects a core that is in waiting state and triggers execution of the selected core by passing the address of function, a pointer to the call parameter(s), and a token that identifies a request that may be used for future return of results.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the trigger provides/passes a token that identifies a request.
wherein the token is associated with data to be accessed by one or more of:
the at least one function during execution of the at least one function; and
one of the one or more nodes on which the function is to be executed. ([1056] “In the illustrated example, the user interface handler 4300 generates a token 4302 (e.g., data “moniker”) that includes a function context identifier (ID) 4304. The function context ID 4304 uniquely identifies a context 4316 of a function associated with an incoming request 4306 to execute the function. More particularly, the function may be attributed with optional fields that describe the context 4316 as an approximate representation of the identity of a dataset construct.” and [1064] “A server location is selected at block 4326 based on the token, wherein illustrated block 4328 invokes the function at the selected server location. In the illustrated example, the context facilitates a retrieval of state data by the function (e.g., the function retrieves the state data from the context).”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the token includes a function context identifier which provides the context of a function to retrieve state data on the node/server location.
Regarding claim 20, Haghighat discloses the method of claim 1 wherein:
the information indicative of which functions access which data during execution of the functions excludes data that is accessed by a predefined number of functions in the FaaS system. ([0663] “For example, various hardware architectures may provide numerous counters which may provide useful information related to the function behavior. Some embodiments may collect statistics of function-related information (e.g., instead of every data point). For example, a database of collected information may be maintained and used by the scheduler/orchestrator for future routing decisions. Advantageously, some embodiments may make better distribution decision(s), provide better resource utilization, etc.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the statistics of function-related information are collected instead of tracking the access of every data point across numerous containers as if one data point is used in every function it could not be used to group together functions in useful groups.
Regarding claim 22, it is an entity claim having the same limitations as cited in method claim 1. Thus, claim 22 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 25, Haghighat discloses the method of claim 1 comprising:
generating, by the entity or a further entity, information indicative of which functions access which data during execution of the functions on the node, the generated information being for use by an entity to group functions into a group of functions to be executed on a single one of the one or more nodes. ([0407] “Furthermore, the invoker and batch balancer 1606 may identify latency constraints of particular functions associated with function requests 1604 and distribute the function requests 1604 to meet the latency constraints. A latency constraint may correspond to a requested time by which the function should complete execution. For example, shorter latency functions may be grouped together when the latency constraints permit and ordered such that all of the latency constraints for every function in the group are satisfied.” and [0422] “In some embodiments, some of the batchable functions may be executed simultaneously, and others of the batchable functions may be executed serially. In some embodiments, the container 1614a may execute a first group of the batchable functions, for example, a maximum number of batchable functions that may be supported by the resources of the container 1614a.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the invoker and batch balancer handles batching/grouping the functions together on the same node/container based on accessing/operating on the same data as the other functions in the same location/group.
Regarding claim 32, it is a method claim having the same limitations as cited in method claim 14. Thus, claim 32 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 34, Haghighat discloses the method of claim 32 wherein:
the data accessed by the at least one function of the group of functions is stored on the another one of the one or more nodes. ([1058] “The server location may be selected based on additional factors. For example, relative location cost (e.g., the cost of data transfer/bandwidth to the location, storing data at the location and/or processing data at the location) of the first server 4312, a second server 4318, a third server 4320, and so forth, may dictate the transfer of the function invocation 4310 and the token 4302 elsewhere.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the location of the data accessed by a function is on another node/server.
Regarding claim 35, it is a method claim having the same limitations as cited in method claim 17. Thus, claim 35 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 17 above.
Regarding claim 36, it is a method claim having the same limitations as cited in method claim 18. Thus, claim 36 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 18 above.
Regarding claim 37, it is a method claim having the same limitations as cited in method claim 19. Thus, claim 37 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 19 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
6. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haghighat et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0263779) – hereinafter “Haghighat”, in view of Gangwar et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,628,626) – hereinafter “Gangwar”.
Regarding claim 3, Haghighat discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
if a function from one of at least two existing groups of functions accesses the same data as at least one function from another of the at least two existing groups of functions, initiating, by the entity, movement of one or more functions comprises: ([0721] “Some embodiments of the enhanced FaaS system may identify functions that operate on the same data (e.g., which may otherwise be unrelated), and put the functions together in same location as the data. Some embodiments may determine metrics to identify whether to perform any merging/decomposition (e.g., minimum 5 minutes execution time for all functions).” and [0422] “In some embodiments, some of the batchable functions may be executed simultaneously, and others of the batchable functions may be executed serially. In some embodiments, the container 1614a may execute a first group of the batchable functions, for example, a maximum number of batchable functions that may be supported by the resources of the container 1614a. After the first group complete execution, a second group of the batchable functions may begin execution, for example a maximum number of batchable functions that may be supported by the resources of the container 1614a.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the functions that are grouped together/put in the same location operate/access the same data. Additionally, there are multiple existing groups of batchable functions that could access the same data.
Haghighat does not explicitly disclose:
merging the at least two existing groups of functions into the group of functions to be executed on the single one of the one or more nodes.
However, Gangwar discloses:
merging the at least two existing groups of functions into the group of functions to be executed on the single one of the one or more nodes. (Figs. 12-14 and Col. 9, Line 63 – Col. 10, Line 12 “Then, a merge candidate group is selected from those connected to the group 1200. In the present examples, the merge candidate group is one which has a lower provisional data width than the given group 1200, because the in an iteration of the modifying step the merging process will involve raising (or not changing, if a merge is not performed) the provisional data width of the potential merge candidate to match that of the given group 1200. So, potential merge candidate groups are groups 1210, 1220, 1230. The group 1240 is not a merge candidate group for the given group 1200. Amongst the merge candidate groups, a merge is selected according to which one of the merge candidate groups provides, when merged, the best net improvement in the cost function. In the example shown in FIG. 12 and further in FIG. 13, this is the group 1230, so that a merged group 1300 is generated based on the previous groups 1200, 1230.” and Col. 10, Lines 25-28 “For example, node A is connected to B and node B is connected to C. Also assume that B is identified to be merged with A. After the merge, the new node AB is connected to C.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the merge candidate groups that can be merged are merged into each other with the smaller groups into the larger groups. Additionally, the merging of groups puts them into one node.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add merging the at least two existing groups of functions into the group of functions to be executed on the single one of the one or more nodes as seen in Gangwar’s invention into Haghighat’s invention because these modifications allow use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way such that groups of functions with common data usage are merged together to all execute on the same node for more efficient execution because of the locality of data.
Regarding claim 4, Haghighat discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
merging the at least two existing groups of functions comprises:
merging the at least two existing groups of functions into the one of the at least two existing groups of functions that comprises the most functions.
However, Gangwar discloses:
merging the at least two existing groups of functions comprises:
merging the at least two existing groups of functions into the one of the at least two existing groups of functions that comprises the most functions. (Figs. 12-14 and Col. 9, Line 63 – Col. 10, Line 12 “Then, a merge candidate group is selected from those connected to the group 1200. In the present examples, the merge candidate group is one which has a lower provisional data width than the given group 1200, because the in an iteration of the modifying step the merging process will involve raising (or not changing, if a merge is not performed) the provisional data width of the potential merge candidate to match that of the given group 1200. So, potential merge candidate groups are groups 1210, 1220, 1230. The group 1240 is not a merge candidate group for the given group 1200. Amongst the merge candidate groups, a merge is selected according to which one of the merge candidate groups provides, when merged, the best net improvement in the cost function. In the example shown in FIG. 12 and further in FIG. 13, this is the group 1230, so that a merged group 1300 is generated based on the previous groups 1200, 1230.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the merge candidate groups that can be merged are merged into each other with the smaller groups into the larger groups.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add merging the at least two existing groups of functions into the one of the at least two existing groups of functions that comprises the most functions as seen in Gangwar’s invention into Haghighat’s invention because these modifications allow use of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way such that the smaller group of functions are transferred into the larger group of functions so less transfers of functions are required for efficient usage of transferring resources.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art as Ranjan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0232440) discloses execution of functions by clusters of computing nodes and transferring functions to other clusters based upon resource availability.
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraphs/sections and line numbers in the references applied and not relied upon to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
When responding to the Office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference(s) cited or the objections made. A showing of how the amendments avoid such references or objections must also be present. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
When responding to this Office action, applicant is advised to provide the line and page numbers in the application and/or reference(s) cited to assist in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B TRAINOR whose telephone number is (571)272-3710. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198