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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 05/23/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 708 in Figure 7; 910 in Figure 9. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 details “wherein when the matching condition comprises the partial match, the output instructions comprise an indication to upgrade the testing device.” As Claim 7 is dependent ultimately on Claim 1, and Claim 1 does not detail a “testing device”, but rather details “an instrument”, Claim 7 should read “wherein when the matching condition comprises the partial match, the output instructions comprise an indication to upgrade the instrument”.
Claim 18 details “an indication to upgrade the testing device.” As Claim 18 is ultimately dependent on claim 12 and Claim 12 does not detail a “testing device”, but rather details “an instrument”, Claim 18 should read “an indication to upgrade the instrument”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The specification details in [0053] the definition of “phenomenon” to be “any of a variety of physical quantities that may be measured or tested for a DUT by a measurement device, testing device, or another instrument.”
The specification details in [0054] the definition of “testing interaction” as “any action or procedure that occurs between a DUT and an instrument to measure a particular phenomenon.”
Claims 9 and 19 detail the limitation “wherein the third phenomena each comprise a respective third phenomenon name and do not comprise a respective third phenomenon value”. Thus it is not clear how the third phenomena does not have a value, as by the definition given for phenomenon that it is a physical quantity that may be measured or tested by a DUT, and thus the measure of the physical quantity would be the value of the phenomena.
Claims 9 and 19 detail the limitation “wherein the third testing interactions each comprise a respective third testing interaction name and do not comprise a respective third testing interaction value”. Thus it is not clear how a testing interaction is any action or procedure that occurs between a DUT and an instrument to measure a phenomenon and does not have a value that would occur from the measurement of the phenomenon.
Examiner interprets the limitation as the third phenomenon and third testing interaction as having a value that is measurable.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing abstract steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract concepts in BOLD of
1. A non-transitory computer-readable memory medium storing program instructions which, when executed by a processor, are configured to cause a computing device to:
receive a data sheet specifying a plurality of first attributes of an instrument;
construct a first data structure based on the data sheet, wherein the first data structure comprises one or more first phenomena and one or more first testing interactions associated with respective ones of the one or more first phenomena;
receive a first test procedure to be performed on a device-under-test (DUT), wherein the first test procedure specifies a plurality of second attributes of the DUT and one or more measurements specifications to be performed on the DUT;
construct a test case based on the first test procedure, wherein the test case comprises one or more second phenomena and one or more second testing interactions associated with respective ones of the one or more second phenomena;
determine whether the plurality of first attributes is compatible with the plurality of second attributes;
based on a determination that the plurality of first attributes is compatible with the plurality of second attributes, determine whether the one or more second phenomena match to the one or more first phenomena;
based on a determination that the one or more second phenomena match to the one or more first phenomena:
determine a matching condition between the one or more first testing interactions and the one or more second testing interactions; and
output instructions based on the matching condition.
12. A method for matching an instrument to a device-under-test (DUT) for performing a first test procedure, the method comprising:
receiving a data sheet specifying a plurality of first attributes of the instrument;
constructing a first data structure based on the data sheet, wherein the first data structure comprises one or more first phenomena and one or more first testing interactions associated with respective ones of the one or more first phenomena;
receiving the first test procedure to be performed on the DUT, wherein the first test procedure specifies a plurality of second attributes of the DUT and one or more measurements specifications to be performed on the DUT;
constructing a test case based on the first test procedure, wherein the test case comprises one or more second phenomena and one or more second testing interactions associated with respective ones of the one or more second phenomena;
determining whether the plurality of first attributes is compatible with the plurality of second attributes;
based on a determination that the plurality of first attributes is compatible with the plurality of second attributes, determining whether the one or more second phenomena match to the one or more first phenomena;
based on a determination that the one or more second phenomena match to the one or more first phenomena:
determining a matching condition between the one or more first testing interactions and the one or more second testing interactions; and
outputting instructions based on the matching condition.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation the fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mental steps.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 1 and 12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because receiving a data sheet with a plurality of first attributes and receiving a first test procedure that specifies a plurality of second attributes is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The additional element of outputting instructions is considered to be mere instructions to apply an exception as the claim limitation does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” as the limitation only recites the idea out of outcome and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. As Recited in MPEP section 2106.05(f), the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claims 2-11 and 13-20 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9-10, 12-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proskauer (US5910895) in view of O’Brien (US20220148065).
In regards to Claims 1 and 12, Proskauer teaches “receive a data sheet specifying a plurality of first attributes of an instrument (Figure 6 details a specsheet, i.e. data sheet, with parameters, i.e. attributes, for an automatic test system, i.e. instrument);
construct a first data structure based on the data sheet, wherein the first data structure comprises one or more first phenomena and one or more first testing interactions associated with respective ones of the one or more first phenomena (Figure 6 details a specsheet with symbol, value, units, description, spec min, spec max, and comment, i.e. data structure with phenomena and testing interactions);
receive a first test procedure to be performed on a device-under-test (DUT), wherein the first test procedure specifies a plurality of second attributes of the DUT and one or more measurements specifications to be performed on the DUT (“Turning to FIG. 10A, one of the advantages of the invention can be observed. FIG. 10A represents a "flow type" spread sheet. FIG. 10A represents the manner in which test "instances" are defined for a particular test. A semiconductor test system is generally needed to test for a limited number of things. For example, the test system might run a pattern "burst". During a burst, the tester applies specified stimulus [i.e. measurement specifications] and checks for certain expected responses [i.e. second attributes]. The values for the stimulus and responses are specified in a "vector file". Different values in the vector file are used to test different kinds of parts or to run different tests on the same part. However, the operations that the tester goes through to use a vector file are generally the same, regardless of the specific data values in it.” – Column 12, Lines 8-22);
construct a test case based on the first test procedure, wherein the test case comprises one or more second phenomena and one or more second testing interactions associated with respective ones of the one or more second phenomena (“The series of steps that the test system must go through to run a pattern burst are coded as a "template." A template is a series of steps that must be performed with the programming equivalent of blank spaces for a description of the specific vector file or other data that is needed. In this way, the template can be used for any test once the specific data values it is to use are specified. Once data has been specified for use with a specific template, an "instance" of the template has been created. The instance can be used in the program. A tester manufacturer generally provides several test templates as part of its control software. The test templates might be used for running a pattern burst or for making a leakage current measurement, checking DC levels on the leads of a device under test or other tester operations. As will be described in greater detail below, the templates of the preferred embodiment are written in Visual Basic, which is a programming language associated with Excel spread sheet program. Each template is written as a Visual Basic procedure and data values are specified as arguments to the procedure.” – Column 12, Lines 22-32);
determine whether the plurality of first attributes is compatible with the plurality of second attributes (“This allows the test template to make comparisons [i.e. compatible] to the Spec Sheet data, such as to determine whether the device being tested is operating within specification (i.e. it passed or failed the test).” - Column 10, Lines 11-36);
based on a determination that the plurality of first attributes is compatible with the plurality of second attributes, determine whether the one or more second phenomena match to the one or more first phenomena (“Turning now to FIG. 6, a spread sheet for a spec sheet is shown. As with all the other data tools, this spread sheet has a tool bar 610, and a menu bar 620 and a tab field 640. Tab field 640 is shown with the current spread sheet, labeled "SpecSheet.sps", highlighted. Likewise, the SpecSheet has a data field 630 with many data cells organized into rows and columns. Here, each row contains a symbol for a parameter associated with a particular device under test. Various information is given for each parameter. FIG. 6 shows 7 columns in each row of data field 630. In addition to the symbol name, each row includes a value, units for that value, a text field for a description of the symbol, minimum and maximum values for a properly operating part and a comment field. Because the data sheets are all developed in a single Excel workbook, these symbols can be referred to by name in the other spread sheets. More importantly, the parameters associated with each symbol can also be used in other spread sheets. Additionally, the name of the Spec Sheet can be passed as a parameter to a specific test template as a test instance is being developed. This allows the test template to make comparisons to the Spec Sheet data, such as to determine whether the device being tested is operating within specification (i.e. it passed or failed the test).” - Column 10, Lines 11-36)”
Proskauer is silent with regards to the language of “based on a determination that the one or more second phenomena match to the one or more first phenomena:
determine a matching condition between the one or more first testing interactions and the one or more second testing interactions; and output instructions based on the matching condition.”
O’Brien teaches “based on a determination that the one or more second phenomena match to the one or more first phenomena:
determine a matching condition between the one or more first testing interactions and the one or more second testing interactions (if there is a performance difference between the performance measurements then the upgrade recommendation feature notifies the user that there is a performance difference in operation – [0027]); and output instructions based on the matching condition (operation invite/instructs the user how to make the upgrade by displaying instructions on a display – [0027]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Proskauer to incorporate the teaching of O’Brien to determine whether there is a difference between the results and output instructions relating to the determination. By performing this comparison and output of instructions this is an improvement to the evaluation and determination of operating parameters of devices under test during the manufacture of said devices.
In regards to Claims 2 and 13, Proskauer in view of O’Brien discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Proskauer further teaches “wherein the first and second phenomena each comprise a respective phenomenon name and a respective phenomenon value (Figure 6 details the specsheet with input voltage high, input voltage low along with output voltage high and output voltage low; with column of values), and
wherein the first and second testing interactions each comprise at least one respective interaction name and at least one respective interaction value (Figure 6 details the specsheet with Spec Min and Spec max with the fields, including the values).”
In regards to Claim 3, Proskauer in view of O’Brien discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Proskauer further teaches “wherein the first and second phenomena comprise one or more of voltage, power, intensity, current, resistance, impedance or capacitance (Figure 6 details the specsheet with input voltage, output voltage, leakage current, power supply current).”
In regards to Claims 4 and 15, Proskauer in view of O’Brien discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Proskauer further teaches “wherein the first and second testing interactions comprise one or more interactions between the instrument and the DUT to measure the associated first or second phenomena (“Turning to FIG. 10A, one of the advantages of the invention can be observed. FIG. 10A represents a "flow type" spread sheet. FIG. 10A represents the manner in which test "instances" are defined for a particular test. A semiconductor test system is generally needed to test for a limited number of things. For example, the test system might run a pattern "burst". During a burst, the tester applies specified stimulus [i.e. measurement specifications] and checks for certain expected responses [i.e. second attributes]. The values for the stimulus and responses are specified in a "vector file". Different values in the vector file are used to test different kinds of parts or to run different tests on the same part. However, the operations that the tester goes through to use a vector file are generally the same, regardless of the specific data values in it.” – Column 12, Lines 8-22).”
As best understood, in regards to Claims 9 and 19, Proskauer in view of O’Brien discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Proskauer further teaches “wherein the program instructions are further executable to cause the computing device to: construct a second data structure based on one or more testing procedures (Figure 6 details a specsheet with symbol, value, units, description, spec min, spec max, and comment, i.e. data structure with phenomena and testing interactions, where the first data structure is associated with the input voltage and spec min/max, a second data structure is associated with the leakage current and spec min/max, with vdd=4.5v and Vin=gnd,vdd, i.e. second data structure),
wherein, for each of the one or more testing procedures, the second data structure comprises one or more respective third phenomena and one or more respective third testing interactions associated with respective ones of the one or more third phenomena (Figure 6 details specsheet with the leakage current and spec min/max associated with the leakage current),
wherein the third phenomena each comprise a respective third phenomenon name and do not comprise a respective third phenomenon value (Figure 6 details specsheet with leakage current, i.e. name, and a value that can be measured),
wherein the third testing interactions each comprise a respective third testing interaction name and do not comprise a respective third testing interaction value,
wherein the test case is determined based at least in part on the second data structure (Figure 6 details a specsheet with symbol, value, units, description, spec min, spec max, and comment, i.e. data structure with phenomena and testing interactions).”
In regards to Claim 10, Proskauer in view of O’Brien discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Proskauer further teaches “wherein the program instructions are further executable to cause the computing device to:
for each of the first and second attributes, extract a respective property name and a respective property value (Figure 6 shows the specsheet of a user-interface where a user can select the data fields to get the values and name),
wherein the first data structure further comprises one or more property names and property values of the first attributes (Figure 6 details a specsheet with symbol, value, units, description, spec min, spec max, and comment).”
In regards to Claim 14, Proskauer in view of O’Brien discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Proskauer further teaches “wherein the first and second phenomena comprise one or more of light, voltage, power, intensity, current, resistance, impedance or capacitance (Figure 6 details the specsheet with input voltage, output voltage, leakage current, power supply current).”
Claims 5, 7, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proskauer in view of O’Brien as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Sauer (US20230152374).
In regards to Claims 5 and 16, Proskauer in view of O’Brien discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Proskauer is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the matching condition comprises one of: a full match; a partial match; or a mismatch.”
Sauer teaches “wherein the matching condition comprises one of: a full match; a partial match; or a mismatch (evaluation of match of data, with perfection match condition, partial match condition, and no matching condition – [0041]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Proskauer in view of O’Brien to incorporate the teaching of Sauer to utilize states of matching corresponding to full matching, partial matching, and not matching. By utilizing matching states, this is an improvement to the evaluation the testing processing occurring with the automated test equipment of devices under test.
In regards to Claim 7, Proskauer in view of O’Brien and Sauer discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Proskauer is silent with regards to the language of “wherein when the matching condition comprises the partial match, the output instructions comprise an indication to upgrade the testing device.”
O’Brien further teaches “wherein when the matching condition comprises the partial match, the output instructions comprise an indication to upgrade the testing device (if there is a performance difference between the performance measurements then the upgrade recommendation feature notifies the user that there is a performance difference in operation – [0027]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Proskauer to incorporate the teaching of O’Brien to determine whether there is a difference between the results and output instructions relating to the determination. By performing this comparison and output of instructions this is an improvement to the evaluation and determination of operating parameters of devices under test during the manufacture of said devices.
In regards to Claim 18, Proskauer in view of O’Brien discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Proskauer is silent with regards to the language of “wherein when the matching condition comprises the partial match, the output instructions comprise one or both of:
an indication to upgrade the testing device; and a specification of one or more incompatibilities between the instrument and the testing procedure.”
O’Brien further teaches “wherein when the matching condition comprises the partial match, the output instructions comprise one or both of: an indication to upgrade the testing device; and a specification of one or more incompatibilities between the instrument and the testing procedure (if there is a performance difference between the performance measurements then the upgrade recommendation feature notifies the user that there is a performance difference in operation – [0027]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Proskauer to incorporate the teaching of O’Brien to determine whether there is a difference between the results and output instructions relating to the determination. By performing this comparison and output of instructions this is an improvement to the evaluation and determination of operating parameters of devices under test during the manufacture of said devices.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proskauer in view of O’Brien and Sauer as applied to claims 5 above, and further in view of Cella (US20220108262).
In regards to Claim 8, Proskauer in view of O’Brien and Sauer discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Proskauer in view of O’Brien and Sauer are silent with regards to the language of “wherein when the matching condition comprises the partial match, the output instructions specify one or more incompatibilities between the instrument and the testing procedure.”
Cella teaches “wherein when the matching condition comprises the partial match, the output instructions specify one or more incompatibilities between the instrument and the testing procedure (system determines the cause of the mismatch and determines corrective actions and it is communicated to a user – [5481]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Proskauer in view of O’Brien and Sauer to incorporate the teaching of Cella to utilize determining the cause of a mismatch and the corrective action to be performed. By determining a mismatch and detailing corrective actions to a user, this is an improvement that yields predictable results in the operation of a detection system to perform accurate measurements.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proskauer in view of O’Brien as applied to claims 10 and 12 above, and further in view of Cella (US20220108262).
In regards to Claim 11, Proskauer in view of O’Brien discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Proskauer in view of O’Brien are silent with regards to the language of “wherein natural language processing is utilized to extract the property names and property values of the first and second attributes.”
Cella teaches “wherein natural language processing is utilized to extract the property names and property values of the first and second attributes (natural language processing utilized with system for local data collection to enable derivation-based learning outcomes from computers – [1157]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Proskauer in view of O’Brien to incorporate the teaching of Cella to utilize natural language processing. By utilizing natural language process this is an improvement that yields predictable results when reading data from a datasheet.
In regards to Claim 20, Proskauer in view of O’Brien discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Proskauer further teaches “for each of the first and second attributes, extracting a respective property name and a respective property value (Figure 6 shows the specsheet of a user-interface where a user can select the data fields to get the values and name), and wherein the first data structure further comprises one or more property names and property values of the first attributes (Figure 6 details a specsheet with symbol, value, units, description, spec min, spec max, and comment).”
Proskauer in view of O’Brien are silent with regards to the language of “wherein natural language processing is utilized to extract the property names and property values of the first and second attributes.”
Cella teaches “wherein natural language processing is utilized to extract the property names and property values of the first and second attributes (natural language processing utilized with system for local data collection to enable derivation-based learning outcomes from computers – [1157]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Proskauer in view of O’Brien to incorporate the teaching of Cella to utilize natural language processing. By utilizing natural language process this is an improvement that yields predictable results when reading data from a datasheet.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 6 and 17 are not rejected under a prior art rejection (35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103).
In regards to Claims 6 and 17, Proskauer in view of O’Brien and Sauer are silent with regards to the language of “wherein when the matching condition comprises the full match, the output instructions comprise an indication to utilize the instrument to perform the testing procedure on the DUT.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3291. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI/Examiner, Art Unit 2857