DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-6 and 8-10 have been presented for examination.
Claim 7 has been cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
PRIORITY
3. Acknowledgment is made that this application is a CIP of PCT/JP2022/029867 filed 08/03/2022.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) JAPAN 2021-128634 filed 08/04/2021.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
i) Following Applicants amendments and arguments the previously presented 101 rejection is MAINTAINED. Applicants first argue that the 101 rejection did not address the limitation of “calculates a required minimum area of a surface of the component embedded substrate on the basis of at least information about a size of each electronic component contained in the component information” specifically in step 2A prong Two. However, as noted in the previous office action and repeated below this limitation was and continues to be addressed in step 2A, prong One as analogous to a person calculating an area based on given sizes of each component and thus fall under Mental Processes. In addition, the steps would constitute Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper, as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts.
Further with respect to Applicants arguments pertaining to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the Examiner notes that the claims recite merely acquiring a data value and then making subsequent calculations based off said value. Nothing in the claim is directed to that value being used to address Applicants alleged improvement.
As to the claimed “processor” the Examiner notes that the use of a computer does not preclude performance of the invention via pen and paper or in a person’s mind. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) Also, the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity to perform a task or simply adding a general purpose computer to an abstract idea, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.06(f)) Here the computer is the machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)) As such the 101 rejection is MAINTAINED.
ii) Following Applicants amendments the previously presented 112 rejection is WITHDRAWN
iii) Applicants argue that Gupta does not disclose a “component embedded substrate” as well as “a required heat dissipation area of the component embedded substrate.” The Examiner notes that Applicants appear to narrowly define the claimed “component embedded substrate” however neither the claims nor specification are limited to their conclusory definition. In view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “component embedded substrate” the prior art recites PCB with components which reads on the claim limitation. This is taught in at least [0157] Component selection 1050 allows a user to specify various component parameters. The choices in this example are illustrated at 1051-1060. Option 1051 allows a user to specify a minimum package size from a list of standard sizes (e.g., 0201, 0402, 0603, 0805, etc.). Option 1052 allows a user to specify a minimum footprint area (e.g., in units of millimeters). [0099] In some examples, the board layout module 514 may be configured to receive an indication of a size of a board on which to layout the components. For instance, the board layout module 514 may provide controls, by way of user interface module 502, to allow for user specification of one or more of PCB width, PCB height, and PCB mounting depth. In other examples, the board layout module 514 may automatically determine where the components are placed on a printed circuit board and delete the portions of the board not used by the components. Thus, the board layout module 514 may be configured to automatically crop the PCB layout based on the components used in the circuit.
With respect to the argued heat dissipation calculation the Examiner notes [0039] …Optimization heuristics 170 may be responsive to design requirements 130 indicative of tradeoffs between various design goals, and may be utilized to prefer one or more parameters over other parameters of a component or design. Design goals to be optimized by optimization heuristics 170 may include small component footprint, efficiency, cost, thermal dissipation, and power utilized, among others. As an example, an optimization heuristic 170 for designs with a smaller footprint may optimize for size by choosing components with relatively smaller footprints that still satisfy the design requirements 130, but at the expense of other parameters such as efficiency. As another example, an optimization heuristic 170 for designs with a higher efficiency may optimize by choosing components capable of being utilized at a relatively lower switching frequency while still satisfying the design requirements 130, but at the expense of other parameters such as cost. See also [0122] …Other information about the power supply design 125 may be included as well, such as operating values including duty cycle, efficiency, BOM cost, BOM footprint, currents through components, and power dissipation for components. The operating values may be included in a table or as plots of the operating value vs. other facts such as load 120 current for different voltages. The report may also contain simulation results, such as from the electrical simulation module 516 and/or thermal simulation module 518, which may be represented in numeric form, tabular form such as via tabular display module 526, and/or graphical form such as via graphical display module 528…)
As such the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED.
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.
5. Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
i) In view of Step 1 of the analysis, claim(s) 1 is directed to a statutory category as a machine, claim 9 is directed to an article of manufacture as a computer-readable non-transitory recording medium, and claim 10 is directed to a statutory category as a process, which each represent a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 8-10 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
ii) In view of Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1, 9, and 10 recite the abstract idea of calculating the area and heat dissipation values of a design which constitutes an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As per claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 9 and 10, the limitation of “calculating a required minimum area of a surface of the component embedded substrate on the basis of at least information about a size of each electronic component contained in the component information and a required heat dissipation area of the component embedded structure” would be analogous to a person calculating an area based on given sizes of each component and thus fall under Mental Processes. In addition, the steps would constitute Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper, as well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts.
Other than reciting a “processor” in claims 1 and 10, and the “medium” in claim 9 nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Dependent claims 2-6, and 8 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
iii) In view of Step 2A, Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The “processor” in claims 1 and 10, and the “medium” in claim 9 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitation in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 9 and 10 of “acquiring component information about the one or more electronic components to be incorporated in the component embedded substrate;” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “acquiring component information about the one or more electronic components to be incorporated in the component embedded substrate;” in claims 1, 9, and 10, alternatively can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-6, and 8 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
iv) In view of Step 2B, claims 1, 9, and 10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “processor” in claims 1 and 10, and the “medium” in claim 9 merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitation in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 9, and 10 of “acquiring component information about the one or more electronic components to be incorporated in the component embedded substrate;” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “acquiring component information about the one or more electronic components to be incorporated in the component embedded substrate;” in claims 1, 9, and 10, alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 further defines the selection of components for the circuit which further represents the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation alternatively can be viewed as an insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 3 further requires an additional mathematical calculation used in the selection of components for the circuit which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process. This claim also represents mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 4 further requires an additional mathematical calculation used in the selection of components for the circuit which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process. This claim also represents mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 5 further requires an additional mathematical calculation used in the selection of components for the circuit which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process. This claim also represents mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claim 6 further defines the types of components used in the selection which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process.
Dependent claim 8 further defines a simulation of the substrate which is based on an additional mathematical calculation which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process. This claim also represents mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
v) Accordingly, claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 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.
6. Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 20160299995 , hereafter Gupta.
Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses A design support apparatus for supporting design of a component embedded substrate including one or more embedded electronic components that configure at least a part of a circuit: the design support apparatus comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute at least:
acquiring component information about the one or more electronic components to be incorporated in the component embedded substrate; and ([0035] The component information 150 may include information on the individual components, such as power supply regulators (switching regulators, low drop out regulators (LDOs), switched capacitors or other types of voltage regulators), capacitors, resistors, diodes, etc. Component information 150 may be received from manufacturers or suppliers in various forms, such as parts information sheets, parts catalogs, schematics, among others. The received component information 150 may be formatted and saved into the data store 145 for use in determining designs. Exemplary component information 150 may include part cost, whether the part is in stock, part dimensions and footprint, pin configuration, minimum and maximum ranges of operation, light output, heat sink requirements, efficiency information, graphs of various characteristics of operation, among other exemplary characteristics. The component information 150 includes information about the components themselves, not the components in combination with other components. The component information 150 is, or is stored in, a database.)
calculating a required minimum area of a surface of the component embedded substrate on the basis of at least information about a size of each electronic component contained in the component information ([0157] Component selection 1050 allows a user to specify various component parameters. The choices in this example are illustrated at 1051-1060. Option 1051 allows a user to specify a minimum package size from a list of standard sizes (e.g., 0201, 0402, 0603, 0805, etc.). Option 1052 allows a user to specify a minimum footprint area (e.g., in units of millimeters). [0099] In some examples, the board layout module 514 may be configured to receive an indication of a size of a board on which to layout the components. For instance, the board layout module 514 may provide controls, by way of user interface module 502, to allow for user specification of one or more of PCB width, PCB height, and PCB mounting depth. In other examples, the board layout module 514 may automatically determine where the components are placed on a printed circuit board and delete the portions of the board not used by the components. Thus, the board layout module 514 may be configured to automatically crop the PCB layout based on the components used in the circuit.)
and a required heat dissipation area of the component embedded substrate. ([0039] …Optimization heuristics 170 may be responsive to design requirements 130 indicative of tradeoffs between various design goals, and may be utilized to prefer one or more parameters over other parameters of a component or design. Design goals to be optimized by optimization heuristics 170 may include small component footprint, efficiency, cost, thermal dissipation, and power utilized, among others. As an example, an optimization heuristic 170 for designs with a smaller footprint may optimize for size by choosing components with relatively smaller footprints that still satisfy the design requirements 130, but at the expense of other parameters such as efficiency. As another example, an optimization heuristic 170 for designs with a higher efficiency may optimize by choosing components capable of being utilized at a relatively lower switching frequency while still satisfying the design requirements 130, but at the expense of other parameters such as cost. [0122] …Other information about the power supply design 125 may be included as well, such as operating values including duty cycle, efficiency, BOM cost, BOM footprint, currents through components, and power dissipation for components. The operating values may be included in a table or as plots of the operating value vs. other facts such as load 120 current for different voltages. The report may also contain simulation results, such as from the electrical simulation module 516 and/or thermal simulation module 518, which may be represented in numeric form, tabular form such as via tabular display module 526, and/or graphical form such as via graphical display module 528…)
Regarding Claim 2: The reference discloses The design support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute at least:
acquiring information about circuit components to be included in the circuit from a circuit database containing information about a configuration of the circuit; and ([0018] In another embodiment, a method includes receiving, at a computing resource, a plurality of design requirements including an input voltage value, an output voltage value, an output current, and at least one of a frequency, a soft start time value, a value indicative of maximum output voltage ripple, a value indicative of maximum inductor current ripple. The method further includes identifying a plurality of electrical components from a database that comply with the design requirements and generating a plurality of power supply designs including the identified plurality of electrical components, each design satisfying the design requirements. The method also includes transmitting the generated plurality of power supply designs.)
selecting the one or more electronic components to be incorporated in the component embedded substrate from the acquired circuit components, ([0157] Component selection 1050 allows a user to specify various component parameters. The choices in this example are illustrated at 1051-1060. Option 1051 allows a user to specify a minimum package size from a list of standard sizes (e.g., 0201, 0402, 0603, 0805, etc.). Option 1052 allows a user to specify a minimum footprint area (e.g., in units of millimeters). [0099] In some examples, the board layout module 514 may be configured to receive an indication of a size of a board on which to layout the components. For instance, the board layout module 514 may provide controls, by way of user interface module 502, to allow for user specification of one or more of PCB width, PCB height, and PCB mounting depth. In other examples, the board layout module 514 may automatically determine where the components are placed on a printed circuit board and delete the portions of the board not used by the components. Thus, the board layout module 514 may be configured to automatically crop the PCB layout based on the components used in the circuit.)
wherein the acquiring of the information about the circuit components includes the acquiring of the component information about the one or more electronic components selected by the selecting. ([0035] The component information 150 may include information on the individual components, such as power supply regulators (switching regulators, low drop out regulators (LDOs), switched capacitors or other types of voltage regulators), capacitors, resistors, diodes, etc. Component information 150 may be received from manufacturers or suppliers in various forms, such as parts information sheets, parts catalogs, schematics, among others. The received component information 150 may be formatted and saved into the data store 145 for use in determining designs. Exemplary component information 150 may include part cost, whether the part is in stock, part dimensions and footprint, pin configuration, minimum and maximum ranges of operation, light output, heat sink requirements, efficiency information, graphs of various characteristics of operation, among other exemplary characteristics. The component information 150 includes information about the components themselves, not the components in combination with other components. The component information 150 is, or is stored in, a database.)
Regarding Claim 3: The reference discloses The design support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the required minimum area of the surface of the component embedded substrate is calculated by using a required minimum mounting area that is derived on the basis of a component area obtained as a total of each area of the one or more electronic components to be incorporated in the component embedded substrate. ([0157] Component selection 1050 allows a user to specify various component parameters. The choices in this example are illustrated at 1051-1060. Option 1051 allows a user to specify a minimum package size from a list of standard sizes (e.g., 0201, 0402, 0603, 0805, etc.). Option 1052 allows a user to specify a minimum footprint area (e.g., in units of millimeters). [0099] In some examples, the board layout module 514 may be configured to receive an indication of a size of a board on which to layout the components. For instance, the board layout module 514 may provide controls, by way of user interface module 502, to allow for user specification of one or more of PCB width, PCB height, and PCB mounting depth. In other examples, the board layout module 514 may automatically determine where the components are placed on a printed circuit board and delete the portions of the board not used by the components. Thus, the board layout module 514 may be configured to automatically crop the PCB layout based on the components used in the circuit.)
Regarding Claim 4: The reference discloses The design support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the required minimum area of the surface of the component embedded substrate is calculated by using a required minimum pad area that is derived on the basis of each area of one or more electrode pads to be mounted on the surface of the component embedded substrate. ([0100] In some examples, the board layout module 514 may be configured to determine a PCB layout according to a predetermined landing area approach. In such an approach, a PCB layout of the design is created with a mount for a particular integrated circuit (such as an LM2678 semiconductor) and also with landing pads for various supporting components to be used with the particular IC. The landing pads may be designed to accommodate a variety of combinations of supporting components, which vary in size and shape, by creating the landing pads for the supporting components large enough and spaced closely enough to accommodate different sizes of components that may potentially be used with the IC. Thus, a single PCB board may be used to accommodate many different schematics, having various sizes and varieties of surface mount components.)
Regarding Claim 5: The reference discloses The design support apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the required minimum pad area is derived on the basis of geometry information containing at least information about a layer structure, a copper foil thickness, and a substrate material of a mounting board on which the component embedded substrate is to be mounted. ([0098] The board layout module 514 may be configured to create a printed circuit board (PCB) layout according to a determined schematic, such as an electrical schematic determined by the schematic determination module 512. The board layout module 514 may determine an appropriate PCB layout according to various parameters, including the topology the circuit, the IC selected, the size of the selected components, whether the design requires a large amount of copper to dissipate heat or a heat sink to dissipate heat, and the like.)
Regarding Claim 6: The reference discloses The design support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more electronic components is a power device. ([0035] The component information 150 may include information on the individual components, such as power supply regulators (switching regulators, low drop out regulators (LDOs), switched capacitors or other types of voltage regulators), capacitors, resistors, diodes, etc.)
Regarding Claim 8: The reference discloses The design support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute at least: conducting a thermal simulation on the component embedded substrate by using information about the required minimum area. ([0039] …Optimization heuristics 170 may be responsive to design requirements 130 indicative of tradeoffs between various design goals, and may be utilized to prefer one or more parameters over other parameters of a component or design. Design goals to be optimized by optimization heuristics 170 may include small component footprint, efficiency, cost, thermal dissipation, and power utilized, among others. As an example, an optimization heuristic 170 for designs with a smaller footprint may optimize for size by choosing components with relatively smaller footprints that still satisfy the design requirements 130, but at the expense of other parameters such as efficiency. As another example, an optimization heuristic 170 for designs with a higher efficiency may optimize by choosing components capable of being utilized at a relatively lower switching frequency while still satisfying the design requirements 130, but at the expense of other parameters such as cost. [0122] …Other information about the power supply design 125 may be included as well, such as operating values including duty cycle, efficiency, BOM cost, BOM footprint, currents through components, and power dissipation for components. The operating values may be included in a table or as plots of the operating value vs. other facts such as load 120 current for different voltages. The report may also contain simulation results, such as from the electrical simulation module 516 and/or thermal simulation module 518, which may be represented in numeric form, tabular form such as via tabular display module 526, and/or graphical form such as via graphical display module 528…)
Regarding Claim 9: See rejection for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10: See rejection for claim 1.
Conclusion
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110023000 which teaches generating a floorplan layout of an integrated circuit (IC).
ii) U.S. Patent Publication No. 20100223587 which teaches integrated circuit design, and more particularly to improving the speed of chip routing for integrated circuit blocks with multiple connections.
iii) U.S. Patent Publication No. A floor plan processing unit forms a floor plan for arranging a plurality of circuit blocks including a non-rectangular area into the chip.
iv) Alexander, Mathew, K. Srihari, and C. Robert Emerson. "Cost based surface mount PCB design evaluation." Journal of Electronic Testing 5.2 (1994): 229-238.
v) Grunow, Martin, H. O. Günther, and M. Schleusener. "Component allocation for printed circuit board assembly using modular placement machines." International Journal of Production Research 41.6 (2003): 1311-1331. (Year: 2003)
vi) Jones, David L. "PCB design tutorial." June 29th (2004): 3-25. (Year: 2004)
vii) Instruments, Texas. "AN-2020 Thermal Design By Insight, Not Hindsight." Texas Instruments (TI) (2013). (Year: 2013)
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights