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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 24, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action and presented for examination. Claims 1, 6, 10, and 16 are newly amended by the response received April 6, 2026.
In claim 6, line 3, amendment markup indicates that “mod” is deleted and “mode” is added; however, the analogous location in the previous set of claims does not appear to have “mod” present and appears to have “mode” already present.
Full faith and credit have been given to a previous examiner’s search.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In [0029], line 1, “to-date” may have been intended to be “to date”.
In [0034], line 1, “well known” may have been intended to be “well-known”.
In [0036], line 7, “with by” should be grammatically reworded.
In [0072], line 4, “available be” should be grammatically reworded.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9, 13, and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1, line 23, “and” should be removed for grammatical clarity if “an execution unit” of claim 1, line 27, rather than “a mode selector unit” of claim 1, line 24, is the last recited element of the processor of claim 1, line 1.
Claims 2-9 are objected to for failing to alleviate the objection of claim 1 above.
In claim 4, line 4, an “and” should be inserted before “wherein” for grammatical clarity. (See, for example, claim 3, line 4.)
Claim 5 is objected to for failing to alleviate the objection of claim 4 above.
In claim 9, line 9, the hyphen or strikethrough mark should be removed from “the-multiple”.
In claim 13, line 4, an “and” should be inserted before “wherein” for grammatical clarity. (See, for example, claim 21, line 4.)
In claim 16, line 26, “and” should be removed for grammatical clarity if “an execution unit” of claim 16, line 31, rather than “a mode selector unit” of claim 16, line 27, is the last recited element of the processor of claim 16, line 3.
In claim 16, line 2, an “and” should be added at the end of the line if “a processor” of claim 16, line 3, is the last recited element of the system of claim 16, line 1.
Claims 17-20 are objected to for failing to alleviate the objections of claim 16 above.
In claim 19, line 4, an “and” should be inserted before “wherein” for grammatical clarity. (See, for example, claim 18, line 4.)
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: “a mode selector unit coupled to receive the first identifier of the first operational mode from the instruction fetch unit, the mode selector unit comprising circuitry to perform a transition of the processor to the first operational mode based on the first identifier” in claims 1 and 16. Note that claims 2-4, 6, 9, and 17-20 recite further functionality associated with a mode selector unit (e.g., “the mode selector unit is to perform…”, “the mode selector unit to transition the processor…”, “the mode selector unit is further to perform…”). Examiner also notes that the recitation of “circuitry” in the context of the instant invention would not be considered “sufficient” structure.
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 1-9 and 16-20 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 recites the limitation “a mode selector unit coupled to receive the first identifier of the first operational mode from the instruction fetch unit, the mode selector unit comprising circuitry to perform a transition of the processor to the first operational mode based on the first identifier” on lines 24-26, which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Specifically, corresponding structure is absent when the specification or drawings merely designate a “black box” to perform the function, and the instant disclosure appears to merely designate a “black box” to perform the function (See Figure 1, Mode Selector 108, and FIG. 3, Mode Selector 305).
Claims 2-9 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 1 above. Note that claims 2-4, 6, and 9 recites further functionality associated with a mode selector unit (e.g., “the mode selector unit is to perform…”, “the mode selector unit to transition the processor…”, “the mode selector unit is further to perform…”).
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a mode selector unit coupled to receive the first identifier of the first operational mode from the instruction fetch unit, the mode selector unit comprising circuitry to perform a transition of the processor to the first operational mode based on the first identifier” on lines 27-30, which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Specifically, corresponding structure is absent when the specification or drawings merely designate a “black box” to perform the function, and the instant disclosure appears to merely designate a “black box” to perform the function (See Figure 1, Mode Selector 108, and FIG. 3, Mode Selector 305).
Claims 17-20 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 16 above. Note that claims 17-20 recites further functionality associated with a mode selector unit (e.g., “the mode selector unit is to perform…”, “the mode selector unit to transition the processor…”).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a mode selector unit coupled to receive the first identifier of the first operational mode from the instruction fetch unit, the mode selector unit comprising circuitry to perform a transition of the processor to the first operational mode based on the first identifier” on lines 24-26, which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Specifically, corresponding structure is absent when the specification or drawings merely designate a “black box” to perform the function, and the instant disclosure appears to merely designate a “black box” to perform the function (See Figure 1, Mode Selector 108, and FIG. 3, Mode Selector 305). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 1 above. Note that claims 2-4, 6, and 9 recites further functionality associated with a mode selector unit (e.g., “the mode selector unit is to perform…”, “the mode selector unit to transition the processor…”, “the mode selector unit is further to perform…”).
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a mode selector unit coupled to receive the first identifier of the first operational mode from the instruction fetch unit, the mode selector unit comprising circuitry to perform a transition of the processor to the first operational mode based on the first identifier” on lines 27-30, which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Specifically, corresponding structure is absent when the specification or drawings merely designate a “black box” to perform the function, and the instant disclosure appears to merely designate a “black box” to perform the function (See Figure 1, Mode Selector 108, and FIG. 3, Mode Selector 305). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 17-20 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 16 above. Note that claims 17-20 recites further functionality associated with a mode selector unit (e.g., “the mode selector unit is to perform…”, “the mode selector unit to transition the processor…”).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the circuitry to access a first one or more bits” in lines 20-21. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the multiple entries of the first page table” in line 21. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 1 above.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the mode selector unit to perform the transition” in lines 1-2. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the mode selector unit to transition the processor to the first operational mode from a second operational mode” in lines 2-3. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the mode selector unit to perform the transition comprises the mode selector unit to transition the processor to the first operational mode from a second operational mode” in lines 1-3. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. In particular, it is indefinite as to how a mode selector unit can comprise both a mode selector unit and another distinct element, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended “comprises” language.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the mode selector unit to perform the transition” in lines 1-2. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the mode selector unit to transition the processor to the first operational mode from a second operational mode” in lines 2-3. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the mode selector unit to perform the transition comprises the mode selector unit to transition the processor to the first operational mode from a second operational mode” in lines 1-3. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. In particular, it is indefinite as to how a mode selector unit can comprise both a mode selector unit and another distinct element, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended “comprises” language.
Claim 5 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 4 above.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the mode selector unit to perform the transition” in lines 1-2. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the mode selector unit to transition the processor to the first operational mode from a second operational mode” in lines 2-3. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the mode selector unit to perform the transition comprises the mode selector unit to transition the processor to the first operational mode from a second operational mode” in lines 1-3. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. In particular, it is indefinite as to how a mode selector unit can comprise both a mode selector unit and another distinct element, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended “comprises” language.
Claim 7 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 6 above.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the multiple entries of the second page table” in line 8. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the second metadata” in line 11. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the processor” in line 17. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Note that this limitation is also recited in claim 10, line 23; claim 12, line 2; claim 13, line 2; claim 14, line 2; and claim 15, line 2.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the multiple entries of the first page table” in lines 20-21. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 11-15 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 10 above.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “The one or more computer-readable storage media of claim 10” in lines 1-2. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “The one or more computer-readable storage media of claim 10” in lines 1-2. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “performing the transition comprises transitioning the processor” in line 2. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. In particular, it is indefinite as to how performing the transition can comprise both transitioning the processor and another distinct step, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended “comprises” language.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “The one or more computer-readable storage media of claim 10” in lines 1-2. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “performing the transition comprises transitioning the processor” in line 2. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. In particular, it is indefinite as to how performing the transition can comprise both transitioning the processor and another distinct step, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended “comprises” language.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “The one or more computer-readable storage media of claim 10” in lines 1-2. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “performing the transition comprises transitioning the processor” in line 2. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. In particular, it is indefinite as to how performing the transition can comprise both transitioning the processor and another distinct step, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended “comprises” language.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “The one or more computer-readable storage media of claim 10” in line 1. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the circuitry to access a first one or more bits” in line 23. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the multiple entries of the first page table” in line 24. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 17-20 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 16 above.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the mode selector unit to perform the transition” in lines 1-2. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the mode selector unit to transition the processor to the first operational mode from a second operational mode” in lines 2-3. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the mode selector unit to perform the transition comprises the mode selector unit to transition the processor to the first operational mode from a second operational mode” in lines 1-3. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. In particular, it is indefinite as to how a mode selector unit can comprise both a mode selector unit and another distinct element, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended “comprises” language.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the mode selector unit to perform the transition” in lines 1-2. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the mode selector unit to transition the processor to the first operational mode from a second operational mode” in lines 2-3. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the mode selector unit to perform the transition comprises the mode selector unit to transition the processor to the first operational mode from a second operational mode” in lines 1-3. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. In particular, it is indefinite as to how a mode selector unit can comprise both a mode selector unit and another distinct element, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended “comprises” language.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the mode selector unit to perform the transition” in lines 1-2. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the mode selector unit to transition the processor to the first operational mode from a second operational mode” in lines 2-3. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the mode selector unit to perform the transition comprises the mode selector unit to transition the processor to the first operational mode from a second operational mode” in lines 1-3. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. In particular, it is indefinite as to how a mode selector unit can comprise both a mode selector unit and another distinct element, which is a scenario encompassed by the claim language in view of the open-ended “comprises” language.
Response to Arguments
Applicant on page 8 argues: “Without agreeing as to the alleged basis of the rejection, Applicants variously amend independent claims 1, 10 and 16 herein in order to advance prosecution of the instant application toward allowance. More particularly, independent claims 1, 10 and 16 are amended to remove references to the detection of an availability of metadata.”
In view of the aforementioned amendments, the previously presented written description rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant on page 8 argues: “The above claim rejection alleges an indefiniteness of independent claims 1, 10 and 16 variously reciting features related to the detection of an availability of metadata. As explained above, independent claims 1, 10 and 16 are amended to remove references to the detection of an availability of metadata.”
In view of the aforementioned amendments, the previously presented indefinite rejections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH E VICARY whose telephone number is (571)270-1314. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Jyoti Mehta can be reached at (571)270-3995. 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.
/KEITH E VICARY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights