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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see section titled “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102”, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As shown in the rejection below, Kharvar teaches new limitation “the first beacon being transmitted through a device connected to the target node”.
Applicant's arguments, see sections titled “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103”, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. For the reason above and as shown in the rejection below, claims 4-8, 10, 13-14, and 16 are rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 11-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20200288373 by Kharvar et al. (hereinafter Kharvar).
Regarding claim 1, Kharvar teaches a method for selecting a path in a communication network, the method comprising:
receiving a first beacon via the communication network (fig. 2, node 205-g receiving top path PREQ message via wireless communications system 200; ¶ 40, Wireless communications system 200 may be an example of a mesh network),
wherein the first beacon comprises a first set of informative parameters related to a first node on a first path to a target node (¶ 42, Included in the PREQ message may be…metric type fields that indicate the type of path metric(s) the devices should consider when acting as a relay node. For example, the metric type field may indicate that the devices are to obtain, store, and/or communicate information about the received signal strength indicator (RSSI) associated with the path, the hop count associated with the path (e.g., the quantity of devices associated with the path), the quantity of battery-powered devices associated with the path, and/or the remaining power of devices forming the path…The PREQ message may also include…path metric fields that represent the value(s) for the metric(s) indicated by the metric type field; ¶ 45, Each recipient of a PREQ message may determine the relevant path metric type(s) (e.g., from the metric type field) and modify the corresponding metric value (e.g., in the path metric field(s))…For example, if the indicated path metric type corresponds to the quantity of battery-powered devices forming the path, the device may increment the metric value by one if it is a battery-powered device. After incrementing the metric value, the device may forward the PREQ message—with the updated metric value; ¶ 49, destination device 205-g may receive multiple PREQ messages, each from a different device 205 and each corresponding to a different path back to source device 205-a; fig. 2, shows top path including node 205-a, node 205-b, node 205-c, node 205-d, and node 205-g. Examiner correspond any one of node 205-b, 205-c or 205-d to the first node),
the first beacon being transmitted through a device connected to the target node (fig. 2, top path PREQ message transmitted through one or more of nodes 205-b, 205-c, or 205-d which is/are connected to node 205-g);
receiving a second beacon via the communication network (fig. 2, node 205-g receiving bottom path PREQ message via wireless communications system 200; ¶ 40, Wireless communications system 200 may be an example of a mesh network),
wherein the second beacon comprises a second set of informative parameters related to a second node on a second path to the target node (¶ 42, Included in the PREQ message may be…metric type fields that indicate the type of path metric(s) the devices should consider when acting as a relay node. For example, the metric type field may indicate that the devices are to obtain, store, and/or communicate information about the received signal strength indicator (RSSI) associated with the path, the hop count associated with the path (e.g., the quantity of devices associated with the path), the quantity of battery-powered devices associated with the path, and/or the remaining power of devices forming the path…The PREQ message may also include…path metric fields that represent the value(s) for the metric(s) indicated by the metric type field; ¶ 45, Each recipient of a PREQ message may determine the relevant path metric type(s) (e.g., from the metric type field) and modify the corresponding metric value (e.g., in the path metric field(s))…For example, if the indicated path metric type corresponds to the quantity of battery-powered devices forming the path, the device may increment the metric value by one if it is a battery-powered device. After incrementing the metric value, the device may forward the PREQ message—with the updated metric value; ¶ 49, destination device 205-g may receive multiple PREQ messages, each from a different device 205 and each corresponding to a different path back to source device 205-a; fig. 2, shows bottom path including node 205-a, node 205-e, node 205-f, and node 205-g. Examiner correspond any one of node 205-e or 205-f to the second node);
calculating a first selective score for the first node on the first path for reaching the target node in the communication network (¶ 52, the path selected for relay may be based on multiple path metric types…the decision-making device may assign respective weights to the path metrics and select the path with the combination of path metrics that has the lowest or highest value; ¶ 41, source device 205-a may initiate a procedure for determining a relay path to destination device 205-g; fig. 2, shows top path including node 205-a, node 205-b, node 205-c, node 205-d, and node 205-g of wireless communications system 200. Examiner correspond the value of the combination of path metrics associated with the top path to the first selective score);
calculating a second selective score for the second node on the second path for reaching the target node in the communication network (¶ 52, the path selected for relay may be based on multiple path metric types…the decision-making device may assign respective weights to the path metrics and select the path with the combination of path metrics that has the lowest or highest value; ¶ 41, source device 205-a may initiate a procedure for determining a relay path to destination device 205-g; fig. 2, shows top path including node 205-a, node 205-b, node 205-c, node 205-d, and node 205-g of wireless communications system 200. Examiner correspond the value of the combination of path metrics associated with the bottom path to the second selective score);
and selecting the first path as a target path based on the first selective score having a higher selective score as compared to the second selective score (¶ 52, the path selected for relay may be based on multiple path metric types…the decision-making device may assign respective weights to the path metrics and select the path with the combination of path metrics that has the lowest or highest value; ¶ 41, source device 205-a may initiate a procedure for determining a relay path to destination device 205-g; fig. 2, shows top path including node 205-a, node 205-b, node 205-c, node 205-d, and node 205-g of wireless communications system 200; ¶ 51, Once the source device 205-a receives the PREP message from device 205-b, the source device may know that the relay path has been established and may transmit content intended for the destination device 205-g to device 205-b. The content will be relayed via the path to the destination device 205-g).
Regarding claim 2, Kharvar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein informative parameters comprise at least one of a device metric, a network metric, or an application metric (Kharvar ¶ 42, Included in the PREQ message may be…metric type fields that indicate the type of path metric(s)…The PREQ message may also include…path metric fields that represent the value(s) for the metric(s) indicated by the metric type field; ¶ 43, The value for the RSSI metric may represent an average RSSI for the devices that are part of a path, or the value(s) for RSSI metric may indicate the RSSI experienced by one or more of the devices. The value for the hop count metric may represent the total quantity of devices that have relayed a particular PREQ message. And the value for the remaining power metric may represent the average battery level for devices that part of the path, or the battery level for one or more of the devices).
Regarding claim 3, Kharvar teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the device metric is indicative or one or more of: a remaining battery time, a current free CPU percentage, or a current free memory associated with a device, wherein the network metric is indicative of a signal strength, a noise floor, a capability of one or more nodes in the communication network, a radio load at a given point, or a channel busyness at given point (Kharvar ¶ 42; ¶ 43, The value for the RSSI metric may represent an average RSSI for the devices that are part of a path, or the value(s) for RSSI metric may indicate the RSSI experienced by one or more of the devices).
Regarding claim 9, Kharvar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first selective score is calculated for a multi-hop path in the communication network (Kharvar ¶ 52, the path selected for relay may be based on multiple path metric types…the decision-making device may assign respective weights to the path metrics and select the path with the combination of path metrics that has the lowest or highest value; ¶ 41, source device 205-a may initiate a procedure for determining a relay path to destination device 205-g; fig. 2, shows top path including node 205-a, node 205-b, node 205-c, node 205-d, and node 205-g of wireless communications system 200. As discussed, the top path includes multiple hops from node 205-a to node 205-b to node 205-c to node 205-d and to node 205-g), wherein the communication network comprises at least one mesh network (Kharvar ¶ 40, Wireless communications system 200 may be an example of a mesh network).
Regarding claim 11, Kharvar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first path includes one or more intermediate nodes (Kharvar fig. 2, shows top path including node 205-a, node 205-b, node 205-c, node 205-d, and node 205-g of wireless communications system 200. As shown, nodes 205-b, 205-c, and 205-d are intermediate nodes between nodes 205-a and 205-g).
Regarding claim 12, Kharvar teaches the method of claim 11, wherein at least one node of the one or more intermediate nodes includes a wireless node (Kharvar fig. 2, shows top path including node 205-a, node 205-b, node 205-c, node 205-d, and node 205-g of wireless communications system 200. As shown, nodes 205-b, 205-c, and 205-d are intermediate nodes between nodes 205-a and 205-g; ¶ 40, Wireless communications system 200 may be an example of a mesh network; ¶ 40, devices 205 may be examples of the wireless devices 115).
Regarding claim 15, Kharvar teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising causing a data transmission along the first path (Kharvar ¶ 51, Once the source device 205-a receives the PREP message from device 205-b, the source device may know that the relay path has been established and may transmit content intended for the destination device 205-g to device 205-b. The content will be relayed via the path to the destination device 205-g).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kharvar and in further view of US Patent 10320691 by Matthews et al. (hereinafter Matthews).
Regarding claim 4, Kharvar teaches the method of claim 2.
Although Kharvar teaches a selective score is computed by assigning one or more weights to at least one of: a device score, a network score, or an application score (Kharvar ¶ 52, the path selected for relay may be based on multiple path metric types…the decision-making device may assign respective weights to the path metrics and select the path with the combination of path metrics that has the lowest or highest value), Kharvar does not explicitly disclose a selective score is computed by dynamically assigning one or more weights to at least one of: the device score, the network score, or the application score.
Matthews in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the concept of dynamically assigning one or more weights (col. 48 lines 19-32, dynamically adjust the weights based on metrics associated with the paths). By modifying Kharvar’s teachings of a selective score is computed by assigning one or more weights to at least one of: a device score, a network score, or an application score with Matthews’s teachings of the concept of dynamically assigning one or more weights, the modification results in a selective score is computed by dynamically assigning one or more weights to at least one of: a device score, a network score, or an application score.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kharvar ‘s teachings with Matthews’ above teachings. The motivation is improving network performance (Matthews col. 1 lines 31-33). Known work in one field of endeavor (Matthews prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Kharvar prior art) based on design incentives (improving network performance) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kharvar and in further view of US 20170201926 by Krendzel et al. (hereinafter Krendzel).
Regarding claim 5, Kharvar teaches the method of claim 1.
Although Kharvar teaches the first set of informative parameters further comprises a link type effect due to links between two or more nodes in the communication network (Kharvar ¶ 42, Included in the PREQ message may be…metric type fields that indicate the type of path metric(s)…The PREQ message may also include…path metric fields that represent the value(s) for the metric(s) indicated by the metric type field; ¶ 43, The value for the RSSI metric may represent an average RSSI for the devices that are part of a path, or the value(s) for RSSI metric may indicate the RSSI experienced by one or more of the devices), Kharvar does not explicitly disclose the first set of informative parameters further comprises a link type effect due to multi-backhaul links between two or more nodes in the communication network.
Krendzel in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches multi-backhaul links between two or more nodes (¶ 115, a wired and…wireless mesh backhaul network 705; ¶ 31, backhaul node and the access node can be connected by a wired connection and/or a wireless connection; fig. 7, shows mesh backhaul network 705 comprising nodes/devices with links/connections between them and communication network 303 comprising nodes/devices with links/connection to backhaul nodes). By modifying Kharvar’s teachings of the first set of informative parameters further comprises a link type effect due to links between two or more nodes in the communication network with Krendzel’s teachings of multi-backhaul links between two or more nodes, the modification results in the first set of informative parameters further comprises a link type effect due to multi-backhaul links between two or more nodes in the communication network.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kharvar’s teachings with Krendzel’s above teachings. The motivation is providing an efficient concept for routing a data packet towards a mobile device over a communication network (Krendzel ¶ 7). Known work in one field of endeavor (Krendzel prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Kharvar prior art) based on design incentives (provide an efficient concept for routing a data packet towards a mobile device over a communication network) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the multi-backhaul links indicate a combination of backhaul link types comprising one or more of: wired links or wireless links (Krendzel ¶ 115, a wired and…wireless mesh backhaul network 705; ¶ 31, backhaul node and the access node can be connected by a wired connection and/or a wireless connection; fig. 7, shows mesh backhaul network 705 comprising nodes/devices with links/connections between them and communication network 303 comprising nodes/devices with links/connection to backhaul nodes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Krendzel’s teachings of the multi-backhaul links indicate a combination of backhaul link types comprising one or more of: wired links or wireless links. The motivation is providing an efficient concept for routing a data packet towards a mobile device over a communication network (Krendzel ¶ 7).
Regarding claim 7, Kharvar teaches the method of claim 1.
Although Kharvar teaches the first path, Kharvar does not explicitly disclose the first path includes two or more different backhaul types.
Krendzel in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a path includes two or more different backhaul types (¶ 115, a wired and…wireless mesh backhaul network 705; ¶ 31, backhaul node and the access node can be connected by a wired connection and/or a wireless connection; fig. 7, shows mesh backhaul network 705 comprising nodes/devices with links/connections between them and communication network 303 comprising nodes/devices with links/connection to backhaul nodes). By modifying Kharvar’s teachings of the first path with Krendzel’s teachings of a path includes two or more different backhaul types, the modification results in the first path includes two or more different backhaul types.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kharvar’s teachings with Krendzel’s above teachings. The motivation is providing an efficient concept for routing a data packet towards a mobile device over a communication network (Krendzel ¶ 7). Known work in one field of endeavor (Krendzel prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Kharvar prior art) based on design incentives (provide an efficient concept for routing a data packet towards a mobile device over a communication network) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Kharvar teaches the method of claim 1.
Although Kharvar teaches at least a portion of the first path includes a connection (Kharvar fig. 2, shows top path including node 205-a, node 205-b, node 205-c, node 205-d, and node 205-g and they are all connected by a line between each node as shown), Kharvar does not explicitly disclose wherein at least a portion of the first path includes a wired connection.
Krendzel in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches at least a portion of a path includes a wired connection (¶ 115, a wired and…wireless mesh backhaul network 705; ¶ 31, backhaul node and the access node can be connected by a wired connection and/or a wireless connection; fig. 7, shows mesh backhaul network 705 comprising nodes/devices with links/connections between them and communication network 303 comprising nodes/devices with links/connection to backhaul nodes; ¶ 166, One of the ways to connect such massive numbers of network entities 100, 305, 307, 309, e.g. small access nodes 745-765, to a core network can be through a wired and/or wireless mesh backhaul network 705). By modifying Kharvar’s teachings of at least a portion of the first path includes a connection with Krendzel’s teachings of at least a portion of a path includes a wired connection, the modification results in at least a portion of the first path includes a wired connection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kharvar’s teachings with Krendzel’s above teachings. The motivation is providing an efficient concept for routing a data packet towards a mobile device over a communication network (Krendzel ¶ 7). Known work in one field of endeavor (Krendzel prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Kharvar prior art) based on design incentives (provide an efficient concept for routing a data packet towards a mobile device over a communication network) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kharvar and in further view of US 20190018704 by Miwa.
Regarding claim 8, Kharvar teaches the method of claim 1.
Although Kharvar teaches the first path, Kharvar does not explicitly disclose the first path includes a full-duplex link type, a half-duplex link type, or a combination thereof.
Miwa in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a path includes a full-duplex link type, a half-duplex link type, or a combination thereof (claim 3, a full mesh topology in which a plurality of switches are interconnected via full duplex communication paths). By modifying Kharvar’s teachings of the first path with Miwa’s teachings of a path includes a full-duplex link type, a half-duplex link type, or a combination thereof, the modification results in the first path includes a full-duplex link type, a half-duplex link type, or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kharvar’s teachings with Miwa’s above teachings. The motivation is minimizing network bottlenecks.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kharvar and in further view of US 20080170549 by Everson et al. (hereinafter Everson).
Regarding claim 13, Kharvar teaches the method of claim 1.
Although Kharvar teaches the communication network Kharvar does not explicitly disclose the communication network includes a plurality of mesh networks.
Everson in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a communication network includes a plurality of mesh networks (fig. 1, shows a plurality of mesh networks 102 and 138). By modifying Kharvar’s teachings of the communication network with Everson’s teachings of a communication network includes a plurality of mesh networks, the modification results in the communication network includes a plurality of mesh networks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kharvar’s teachings with Everson’s above teachings. The motivation is facilitating emergency communication (Everson ¶ 20). Known work in one field of endeavor (Everson prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Kharvar prior art) based on design incentives (facilitate emergency communication) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, Kharvar teaches the method of claim 1.
Kharvar does not explicitly disclose but Everson in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches a movement along the path includes exiting a first mesh network and entering a second mesh network (¶ 65, facilitate routing of communications between the two mesh networks; ¶ 46, once the mesh networks are bridged, client device 128, which is served by mesh network 102, may then pass communications to client device 164, which is served by mesh network 138, over a communication path that includes nodes 108 and 144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kharvar’s teachings with Everson’s above teachings. The motivation is facilitating emergency communication (Everson ¶ 20). Known work in one field of endeavor (Everson prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Kharvar prior art) based on design incentives (facilitate emergency communication) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kharvar and in further view of US 20060140111 by Vasseur et al. (hereinafter Vasseur) (IDS filed 11/22/22).
Regarding claim 16, Kharvar teaches the method of claim 15.
Although Kharvar teaches the data transmission (Kharvar ¶ 51, Once the source device 205-a receives the PREP message from device 205-b, the source device may know that the relay path has been established and may transmit content intended for the destination device 205-g to device 205-b. The content will be relayed via the path to the destination device 205-g), the target node, and the first path, Kharvar does not explicitly disclose subsequent to the data transmission, the first path experiences an alteration, wherein the data transmission is to follow an altered path to the target node responsive to the alteration to the first path.
Vasseur in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches subsequent to a data transmission, a first path experiences an alteration, wherein the data transmission is to follow an altered path to a target node responsive to the alteration to the first path (¶ 22, a source node 105 that transmits data packets 130 to a destination node 110. The packets traverse a logical data path 140 (shown in bold), which in this case includes the intermediate node 200a. Specifically, the source node 105 forwards a packet 130 to the intermediate node 200a which, in turn, then forwards the packet to the destination node 110; ¶ 23, The intermediate node 200a may be configured to identify a local repair path (backup path) that "protects" network traffic between the intermediate node 200a and the destination node 110. The intermediate node 200a may redirect packets 130 over the local repair path in response to, e.g., a data link failure between the intermediate node 200a and the destination node 110 or any other network failure that renders the destination node inaccessible…the intermediate node 200a may select between two possible repair paths in response to a failed data link between the intermediate node 200a and the destination node 110: a first repair path from intermediate node 200a to an intermediate node 200b to the destination node 110 and a second repair path from the intermediate node 200a via intermediate node 200c to destination node 110. The intermediate node 200a preferably selects one of these repair paths). By modifying Kharvar’s teachings of the data transmission, the target node, and the first path with Vasseur’s teachings of subsequent to a data transmission, a first path experiences an alteration, wherein the data transmission is to follow an altered path to a target node responsive to the alteration to the first path, the modification results in subsequent to the data transmission, the first path experiences an alteration, wherein the data transmission is to follow an altered path to the target node responsive to the alteration to the first path.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kharvar’s teachings with Vasseur’s above teachings. The motivation is enabling desired data to reach a destination in case of a link failure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER P CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7152. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 A.M - 6 P.M. ET M-F.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/PETER P CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476