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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 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 “permit one of the multiple server devices to draw more than the nominal power limit” in Lines 8-9. The use of the term “permit” renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear, as it causes no functionality to occur and it includes anything and everything that does not explicitly prohibit the one of the multiple server devices from drawing more than the nominal power limit. For the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted this limitation as “enable one of the multiple server devices to draw more than the nominal power limit”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the nominal power unit power limit" in Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to whether this is intended to refer to the previously claimed nominal PDU power limit. For the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted this limitation as “the nominal PDU power limit”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “permit the first PDU to temporarily draw more than the nominal power unit power limit” in Lines 3-4. The use of the term “permit” renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear, as it causes no functionality to occur and it includes anything and everything that does not explicitly prohibit the first PDU from temporarily drawing more than the nominal power unit power limit. For the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted this limitation as “enable the first PDU to temporarily draw more than the nominal PDU power limit”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “permit the one of the multiple server devices to draw more than the nominal power limit based on a system power model” in Lines 1-2. The use of the term “permit” renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear, as it causes no functionality to occur and it includes anything and everything that does not explicitly prohibit the one of the multiple server devices from drawing more than the nominal power limit based on a system power model. For the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted this limitation as “enable the one of the multiple server devices to draw more than the nominal power limit based on a system power model”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “permitting one PSU of the multiple server devices of the PSUs to draw more power than the nominal power limit” in Lines 9-10. The use of the term “permit” renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear, as it causes no functionality to occur and it includes anything and everything that does not explicitly prohibit the one PSU from drawing more than the nominal power limit. For the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted this limitation as “enabling one PSU of the multiple server devices of the PSUs to draw more power than the nominal power limit”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “permitting the first power unit temporarily draw more than the nominal power unit power limit” in Lines 4-5. The use of the term “permit” renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear, as it causes no functionality to occur and it includes anything and everything that does not explicitly prohibit the first power unit from temporarily drawing more than the nominal power unit power limit. For the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted this limitation as “enabling the first power unit temporarily draw more than the nominal power unit power limit”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “permitting the one PSU to draw more than the nominal power limit based on the system power model” in Lines 3-4. The use of the term “permit” renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear, as it causes no functionality to occur and it includes anything and everything that does not explicitly prohibit the one of the multiple server devices from drawing more than the nominal power limit based on the system power model. For the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted this limitation as “enabling the one PSU to draw more than the nominal power limit based on the system power model”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “permit a first PSU of the PSUs to draw more power than the nominal power limit” in Lines 9-10. The use of the term “permit” renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear, as it causes no functionality to occur and it includes anything and everything that does not explicitly prohibit the first PDU from drawing more power than the nominal power limit. For the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted this limitation as “enable a first PSU of the PSUs to draw more power than the nominal power limit”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the nominal power limit" in Line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted this limitation as “a nominal power limit”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “permit the one of the multiple server devices to temporarily draw more than the nominal power limit based on a system power model” in Lines 1-2. The use of the term “permit” renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear, as it causes no functionality to occur and it includes anything and everything that does not explicitly prohibit the one of the multiple server devices from temporarily drawing more than the nominal power limit. For the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted this limitation as “enable the one of the multiple server devices to temporarily draw more than the nominal power limit based on a system power model”.
Dependent claims inherit the indefiniteness of their parent claims and are rejected under the same reasoning.
Claim Interpretation
For the purposes of evaluating prior art with respect to patentability, the Examiner has interpreted the claimed “nominal power limit”, “nominal PDU power limit”, and “nominal power unit power limit” as a power cap or threshold, in accordance with Applicant’s disclosure (See Paragraphs 19 and 98).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to signals per se. Claim 8 recites the limitation “a computer readable storage medium” in Line 1. Applicant’s disclosure defines a machine readable storage medium (which is a term equivalent to a computer readable storage medium) as including “any mechanism that stores information in a form accessible by a machine” (See Paragraph 148). Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “computer readable storage medium” includes non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Transitory forms of signal transmission do not fall within any statutory category. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294, 112 USPQ2d 1120, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, 15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Number 9,891,682 to Czamara et al. (“Czamara”).
In reference to Claim 1, Czamara discloses a system including: a bus segment (See Figures 1-3 Number 108 coupled between Number 106B and Numbers 106A and Figure 4 Number 108 coupled between Number 406A and Numbers 404A and 404B) of an electrical hierarchy (See Figures 1-4 and Column 6 Lines 45-67); a first power distribution unit (PDU) coupled to the bus segment (See Figure 1-3 Number 106A and Figure 4 Number 406A), the first PDU being one of multiple PDUs coupled to the bus segment (See Figures 1-3 Number 106A [power distribution component(s)], Figure 4 Number 406B, and Column 6 Lines 27-29); multiple server devices coupled to the first PDU (See Figures 1-4 Numbers 104 and Column 6 Lines 19-22), the server devices having a maximum power limit and a nominal power limit lower than the maximum power limit (See Figures 5 and 6, Column 3 Lines 17-23, 33-38, and 59-67, Column 7 Lines 8-22, and Column 14 Lines 1-29 [server devices can operate with either a maximum power limit or a capped/nominal power limit]); and a power manager to monitor power draw of the bus segment, power draw of the multiple PDUs, and power draw of the multiple server devices (See Figures 1-3 Numbers 112-114, Figures 1-4 Number 116, and Column 7 Lines 1-57), and based on the power draw, to permit one of the multiple server devices to draw more than the nominal power limit (See Figures 5 and 6 and Column 13 Lines 1-13 and 54-67).
In reference to Claim 2, Czamara discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Czamara further discloses that the nominal power limit comprises a power threshold, wherein the power manager is to perform a power draw assessment in response to the one of the multiple server devices drawing power above the nominal power limit (See Column 12 Lines 37-67).
In reference to Claim 3, Czamara discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Czamara further discloses that the first PDU has a maximum PDU power limit and a nominal PDU power limit lower than the maximum PDU power limit, wherein the power manager is to permit the first PDU to temporarily draw more than the nominal power unit power limit (See Figures 5 and 6, Column 3 Lines 17-23 and 33-38, and Column 7 Lines 23-40).
In reference to Claim 4, Czamara discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Czamara further discloses that the power manager is to apply a power cap and remove a power cap on the one of the multiple servers based on the power draw (See Column 3 Lines 62-67 and Column 13 Lines 1-17).
In reference to Claim 8, Czamara discloses an apparatus comprising a computer readable storage medium having content stored thereon, which when executed by a machine performs operations to execute a method (See Column 16 Line 47 – Column 18 Line 47 and Column 20 Lines 25-45) including: monitoring power draw (See Column 7 Lines 1-57) of an electrical hierarchy (See Figures 1-4 and Column 6 Lines 45-67) including a busbar power supply (See Figures 1-3 Number 108 coupled between Number 106B and Numbers 106A and Figure 4 Number 108 coupled between Number 406A and Numbers 404A and 404B and Column 6 Lines 54-62), multiple power units connected to the busbar power supply (See Figures 1-3 Number 106A [power distribution component(s)], Figure 4 Number 406B, and Column 6 Lines 27-29), and multiple server devices (See Figures 1-4 Numbers 104 and Column 6 Lines 19-22) with power supply units (PSUs) (See Figure 10 Number 1004) connected to a first power unit of the multiple power units (See Figure 1-3 Number 106A and Figure 4 Number 406A), the PSUs having a maximum power limit and a nominal power limit lower than the maximum power limit (See Figures 5 and 6, Column 3 Lines 17-23, 33-38, and 59-67, Column 7 Lines 8-22, and Column 14 Lines 1-29 [server devices can operate with either a maximum power limit or a capped/nominal power limit]); and based on the power draw, permitting one PSU of the multiple server devices to draw more than the nominal power limit (See Figures 5 and 6 and Column 13 Lines 1-13 and 54-67).
In reference to Claim 9, Czamara discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 8 above. Czamara further discloses that nominal power limit comprises a power threshold, wherein the method further includes: performing a power draw assessment in response to the one PSU drawing power above the nominal power limit (See Column 12 Lines 37-67).
In reference to Claim 10, Czamara discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 8 above. Czamara further discloses that the first power unit has a maximum power unit power limit and a nominal power unit power limit lower than the maximum power unit power limit, wherein the method further includes: permitting the first power unit to temporarily draw more than the nominal power unit power limit (See Figures 5 and 6, Column 3 Lines 17-23 and 33-38, and Column 7 Lines 23-40).
In reference to Claim 11, Czamara discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 8 above. Czamara further discloses applying a power cap and remove a power cap on the one PSU based on the power draw (See Column 3 Lines 62-67 and Column 13 Lines 1-17).
In reference to Claim 15, Czamara discloses a server device (See Figures 1-3 Numbers 112-114, Figures 1-4 Number 116, and Column 7 Lines 1-57), comprising: input/output (I/O) hardware (See Figure 9 Number 970, Column 16 Lines 20-24, and Column 18 Lines 48-67) coupled to receive input from sensors (See Figures 1-3 Numbers 110A-110C) about power draw (See Column 7 Lines 1-57) of different levels of an electrical hierarchy (See Figures 1-4 and Column 6 Lines 45-67), the electrical hierarchy including a transformer level with a transformer (See Figures 1-3 Numbers 106B and 106C, Figure 4 Numbers 406B and 406C, and Column 6 Lines 32-67), a bus segment level with multiple bus segments to couple to the transformer (See Figures 1-4 Numbers 108), a power distribution unit (PDU) level with multiple PDUs to couple to a first bus segment of the multiple bus segments (See Figures 1-3 Number 106A [power distribution component(s)], Figure 4 Number 406B, and Column 6 Lines 27-29), and a power supply unit (PSU) level with PSUs (See Figure 10 Number 1004) of multiple server devices (See Figures 1-4 Numbers 104 and Column 6 Lines 19-22) to couple to a first PDU of the multiple PDUs (See Figure 1-3 Number 106A and Figure 4 Number 406A); and a power manager to process power draw information from the sensors (See Figures 1-3 Numbers 112-114, Figures 1-4 Number 116, and Column 7 Lines 1-57), compute a system topology (See Column 7 Lines 1-57 [receiving information from sensors coupled to each of the components will necessarily result in a determination of the topology in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation]), and determine whether to permit a first PSU of the PSUs to draw more power than the nominal power limit, based on power draw in the electrical hierarchy (See Figures 5 and 6 and Column 13 Lines 1-13 and 54-67).
In reference to Claim 18, Czamara discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 15 above. Czamara further discloses that the power manager is to measure power data from the sensors for every level of the electrical hierarchy periodically to determine if power draw of any portion of the electrical hierarchy exceeds a high power level, and throttle at least one server of a portion of the electrical hierarchy in response a determination that the portion exceeds the high power level (See Column 3 Lines 62-67 and Column 12 Lines 37-67).
In reference to Claim 19, Czamara discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 15 above. Czamara further discloses that the power manager is to measure power data from the sensors for every level of the electrical hierarchy periodically to determine if power draw of any portion of the electrical hierarchy is less than a low power level, and remove a throttle for at least one server of a portion of the electrical hierarchy in response a determination that the portion draws less than the low power level (See Figures 5 and 6, Column 3 Lines 17-23, 33-38, and 59-67, Column 7 Lines 1-57, Column 14 Lines 1-29, and Column 15 Lines 3-6).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czamara as applied to Claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0229216 to Lerer et al (“Lerer”).
In reference to Claim 5, Czamara discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Czamara does not explicitly disclose that the power manager is to permit the one of the multiple server devices to draw more than the nominal power limit based on a system power model, wherein the power manager is to train the system power model based on monitoring of power draw of the system. Lerer discloses that a power manager (See Paragraphs 20-21 and 44) is to control the power consumption (See Paragraphs 20-21) of multiple server devices (See Paragraph 20) in a system based on a system power model (See Paragraph 38), wherein the power manager is to train the system power model based on monitoring of power draw of the system (See Paragraphs 31 and 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Czamara using the power model based power consumption control of Lerer, resulting in the invention of Claim 5, because the simple substitution of the power model based power consumption control for multiple servers of Lerer as the power consumption control of multiple servers of Czamara would have yielded the predictable result of improving the power efficiency of the data center while balancing between minimum processing times and power savings (See Paragraphs 6, 11, 15, 19, and 25 of Lerer).
In reference to Claim 12, Czamara discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 8 above. Czamara does not explicitly disclose training a system power model based on monitoring power draw of the system; and permitting the one PSU to draw more than the nominal power limit based on the system power model. Lerer discloses training a system power model based on monitoring power draw of the system (See Paragraphs 31 and 37); and controlling the power consumption (See Paragraphs 20-21) of PSUs of multiple server devices (See Paragraph 20) in a system based on the system power model (See Paragraph 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Czamara using the power model based power consumption control of Lerer, resulting in the invention of Claim 12, because the simple substitution of the power model based power consumption control for multiple servers of Lerer as the power consumption control of multiple servers of Czamara would have yielded the predictable result of improving the power efficiency of the data center while balancing between minimum processing times and power savings (See Paragraphs 6, 11, 15, 19, and 25 of Lerer).
In reference to Claim 16, Czamara discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 15 above. Czamara does not explicitly disclose that the power manager is to permit the one of the multiple server devices to temporarily draw more than the nominal power limit based on a system power model, wherein the power manager is to train the system power model based on monitoring of power draw of the system. Lerer discloses that a power manager (See Paragraphs 20-21 and 44) is to control the power consumption (See Paragraphs 20-21) of multiple server devices (See Paragraph 20) in a system based on a system power model (See Paragraph 38), wherein the power manager is to train the system power model based on monitoring of power draw of the system (See Paragraphs 31 and 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Czamara using the power model based power consumption control of Lerer, resulting in the invention of Claim 16, because the simple substitution of the power model based power consumption control for multiple servers of Lerer as the power consumption control of multiple servers of Czamara would have yielded the predictable result of improving the power efficiency of the data center while balancing between minimum processing times and power savings (See Paragraphs 6, 11, 15, 19, and 25 of Lerer).
Claim(s) 6-7, 13-14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czamara and Lerer as applied to Claims 5, 12, and 16 above, and further in view of “How Active Learning Can Train Machine Learning Models with Less Data” by Alessandra Tosi (“Tosi”).
In reference to Claim 6, Czamara and Lerer disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 5 above. Lerer further discloses that that the power manager is to train the system power model, including to set permissible power draw levels for the multiple server devices (See Paragraphs 27-29, 38-39, and 42). Czamara and Lerer do not explicitly disclose that the power manager is to train the system power model based on monitoring of a representative subset of the multiple server devices. Tosi discloses training a machine learning model based on monitoring of a representative subset of the available data (See Pages 2-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Czamara and Lerer using the representative subset of the multiple server devices to train the power model of Tosi, resulting in the invention of Claim 6, in order to yield the predictable result of training the model with comparable performance in a fraction of the time (See Page 2 of Tosi).
In reference to Claim 7, Czamara, Lerer, and Tosi disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 6 above. Lerer further discloses that the power manager is to adjust the permissible power draw levels based on monitoring of behaviors of all of the target devices, which is necessarily a larger subset of the multiple server devices (See Paragraphs 41 and 43).
In reference to Claim 13, Czamara and Lerer disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 12 above. Lerer further discloses that training the system power model comprises setting permissible power draw levels for the PSUs (See Paragraphs 27-29, 38-39, and 42). Czamara and Lerer do not explicitly disclose that training the system power model comprises training based on monitoring a representative subset of the PSUs. Tosi discloses training a machine learning model based on monitoring of a representative subset of the available data (See Pages 2-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Czamara and Lerer using the representative subset of the multiple server devices to train the power model of Tosi, resulting in the invention of Claim 13, in order to yield the predictable result of training the model with comparable performance in a fraction of the time (See Page 2 of Tosi).
In reference to Claim 14, Czamara, Lerer, and Tosi disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 3 above. Lerer further discloses adjusting the permissible power draw levels based on monitoring behaviors of all of the target PSUs, which is necessarily a larger subset of the multiple server devices (See Paragraphs 41 and 43).
In reference to Claim 17, Czamara and Lerer disclose the limitations as applied to Claim 16 above. Lerer further discloses that that the power manager is to train the system power model, including to set permissible power draw levels for the multiple server devices (See Paragraphs 27-29, 38-39, and 42). Czamara and Lerer do not explicitly disclose that the power manager is to train the system power model based on monitoring of a representative subset of the multiple server devices. Tosi discloses training a machine learning model based on monitoring of a representative subset of the available data (See Pages 2-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Czamara and Lerer using the representative subset of the multiple server devices to train the power model of Tosi, resulting in the invention of Claim 17, in order to yield the predictable result of training the model with comparable performance in a fraction of the time (See Page 2 of Tosi).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czamara as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0211810 to Zacho et al (“Zacho”).
In reference to Claim 20, Czamara discloses the limitations as applied to Claim 15 above. Czamara does not explicitly disclose that the power manager is to measure power draw for a representative sample of server devices in the electrical hierarchy and compute whether additional server device capacity can be added to the electrical hierarchy based on power draw through the electrical hierarchy for the representative sample. Zacho discloses that a power manager is to measure power draw for a representative sample of server devices in an electrical hierarchy (See Paragraph 88 [power draw can be measured for one or more servers, and thus can be measured for fewer than all]) and compute whether additional server device capacity can be added to the electrical hierarchy based on power draw through the electrical hierarchy for the representative sample (See Paragraphs 38, 43, 63, 67, 79, 87, 89, and 92-97).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to construct the device of Czamara using the additional server device capacity determination of Zacho, resulting in the invention of Claim 20, in order to yield the predictable result of allowing additional server capacity to be added while optimizing balancing and space utilization and controlling power distribution of the servers while optimizing, thus improving data center efficiency (See Paragraphs 24, 44, 79, 80, and 87 of Zacho).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 November 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J CLEARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-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, Andrew Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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.
/THOMAS J. CLEARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175