DETAILED ACTION
This is Non-Final Office Action in response to the RCE filed on December 1, 2025 and Petition Decision February 17, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, similar claim 8 and claim 15 recite the limitations "the first record chain” and “the second record chain" in the context of replaying by the storage record engine. However, the claims fail to provide proper antecedent basis for these limitations. Specifically, the claims do not previously introduce “a first record chain” or “a second record chain” before referring to them as “the” first and second record chains. As a result, it is unclear how these record chains are defined or structured, and how checkpoint records and transaction records are ordered within them for replay. Accordingly, the scope of the claims is unclear, raising an issue of indefiniteness.
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 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental process without significantly more. The claims recite sending a plurality of transaction records to hosted storage of the storage system; sending a plurality of checkpoint records to the hosted storage concurrently; interleaving two record types “checkpoint records” and “transaction records”; replaying the checkpoint records in one ordered chain “the second record chain” and replaying the transaction records in another ordered chain “the first record chain”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps can be performed manually in human mind. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim here merely uses the processor as a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, the limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
ANALYSIS under Revised Guidance of 2019 PEG:
Statutory Category:
The claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory category (claims 1-7 a method or a process, claims 8-14 a system or a machine and claims 15-20 a computer-readable storage medium).
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
The claim 1 recites the limitations of “sending a plurality of transaction records to hosted storage of the storage system, sending a plurality of checkpoint records to the hosted storage…; and replaying the plurality of transaction records as ordered in a first record chain.” The limitations sending a plurality of transaction records; sending a plurality of checkpoint records concurrently; interleaving two record types; replaying the checkpoint records in one ordered chain, and replaying the transaction records in another ordered chain are fundamentally directed to organizing, storing, ordering and replaying data records. Claim is directed to data organization, information processing, and sequencing of information have consistently been recognized as abstract ideas. That is, nothing in the claim 1 precludes the recited processing steps from being performed practically in the human mind. Accordingly, the claim is directed to mental processes, which are a recognized category of abstract idea, mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an evaluation, judgment, opinion, observation). (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Step 2A – Prong 2: integrated into a practical application?
The claim 1 recites limitations or elements (sending a plurality of transaction records to hosted storage of the storage system and sending a plurality of checkpoint records to the hosted storage) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The claim does not provide an incentive concept.
Claim 1 does not recite an improve computer functionality itself, improve storage hardware architecture or change physical storage mechanisms, instead it describes logical record chains, ordering rules “records as ordered in chains”, replay rules and concurrently transmission. The claim merely performs sending data, ordering data and replaying. Thus, the claim includes limitations or elements that are sufficient to amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. The same analysis applies here in 2B, that is, mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, it cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A or provide an inventive concept in step 2B. Thus, the claim 1 is ineligible as more detail explanation below.
At step 2A(i):
Independent claim 1 recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“sending a plurality of transaction records to hosted storage of the storage system, sending a plurality of checkpoint records to the hosted storage …”, as insignificant extra-solution activities per MPEP 2106.05(g), it is insignificant pre-solution activity at Step 2A Prong 2 such as data gathering, receiving or sending to the hosted storage of the storage system. And at Step 2B, this is well-understood routine and conventional (WURC) and Berkheimer is an evidence of WURC. As described in the specification at paragraphs [0133]-[0134], etc. as evidence under MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
“replaying the plurality of transaction records as ordered in a first record chain” recites a mental process as replaying data. There is nothing specific recited as to how the replaying is processed to order the plurality of transaction records in the record chain. Instead this merely recites that the abstract idea of replaying the plurality of transaction records is implemented on a computer per MPEP 2106.05(f).
At step 2A(ii):
The claim recites the following additional elements:
That the method is “a storage engine of a storage system” insignificant extra solution activities per MPEP 2106.05(g).
At step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Dependent claim 2 recites “update describing a modification to superblock metadata of the storage system or a modification to individual chunk metadata of the storage system” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 3 recites “writing a checkpoint start record; and blocking a commit of a transaction record of the plurality of the transaction records” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 4 recites “sending a checkpoint chunk segment index map record to the hosted storage” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 5 recites “identifying an open superblock of the hosted storage” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 6 recites “the plurality of transaction records is performed after replaying checkpoint records…” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 7 recites “the plurality of checkpoint records comprises checkpoint superblock metadata records and checkpoint chunk metadata records, and the plurality of checkpoint records are ordered in a second record chain..” extra solution activity under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Independent claim 8
The claim recites the limitations of “sending a plurality of transaction records to hosted storage of the storage system, sending a plurality of checkpoint records to the hosted storage…; and replaying the plurality of transaction records as ordered in a first record chain.” The limitations sending a plurality of transaction records; sending a plurality of checkpoint records concurrently; interleaving two record types; replaying the checkpoint records in one ordered chain, and replaying the transaction records in another ordered chain are fundamentally directed to organizing, storing, ordering and replaying data records. Claim is directed to data organization, information processing, and sequencing of information have consistently been recognized as abstract ideas. That is, nothing in the claim 8 precludes the recited processing steps from being performed practically in the human mind. Accordingly, the claim is directed to mental processes, which are a recognized category of abstract idea.
At step 2A(i):
Independent claim 8 recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“sending a plurality of transaction records to hosted storage of the storage system, sending a plurality of checkpoint records to the hosted storage …”, as insignificant extra-solution activities per MPEP 2106.05(g), it is insignificant pre-solution activity at Step 2A Prong 2 such as data gathering, receiving or sending to the hosted storage of the storage system. And at Step 2B, this is well-understood routine and conventional (WURC) and Berkheimer is an evidence of WURC. As described in the specification at paragraphs [0133]-[0134], etc. as evidence under MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
“replaying the plurality of transaction records as ordered in a first record chain” recites a mental process as replaying data. There is nothing specific recited as to how the replaying is processed to order the plurality of transaction records in the record chain. Instead this merely recites that the abstract idea of replaying the plurality of transaction records is implemented on a computer per MPEP 2106.05(f).
At step 2A(ii):
The claim recites the following additional elements:
That the system is “one or more processors and memory” insignificant extra solution activities per MPEP 2106.05(g).
At step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Dependent claim 9 recites “a record generating submodule executable by the one or more processors to generate a transaction record…” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 10 recites “a start writing submodule executable by the one or more processors to write a checkpoint start record; and a commit blocking submodule executable by the one or more processors to block a commit of a transaction record of the plurality of the transaction records…” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 11 recites “a third record sending submodule executable by the one or more processors to send a checkpoint chunk segment index map record to the hosted storage…” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 12 recites “a superblock identifying submodule executable by the one or more processors to identify an open superblock of the hosted storage…” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 13 recites “…replaying transaction records after a second records replaying submodule of the transaction log replaying module is executed by the one or more processors to replay checkpoint records of a latest checkpoint” abstract idea under step 2A(ii). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 14 recites “checkpoint superblock metadata records and checkpoint chunk metadata records, and the plurality of checkpoint records are ordered in a second record chain” abstract idea under step 2A(i). Therefore, the claimed elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Independent claim 15
The claim recites the limitations of “sending a plurality of transaction records to hosted storage of the storage system, sending a plurality of checkpoint records to the hosted storage…; and replaying the plurality of transaction records as ordered in a first record chain.” The limitations sending a plurality of transaction records; sending a plurality of checkpoint records concurrently; interleaving two record types; replaying the checkpoint records in one ordered chain, and replaying the transaction records in another ordered chain are fundamentally directed to organizing, storing, ordering and replaying data records. Claim is directed to data organization, information processing, and sequencing of information have consistently been recognized as abstract ideas. That is, nothing in the claim 15 precludes the recited processing steps from being performed practically in the human mind. Accordingly, the claim is directed to mental processes, which are a recognized category of abstract idea.
At step 2A(i):
Independent claim 15 recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“sending a plurality of transaction records to hosted storage of the storage system, sending a plurality of checkpoint records to the hosted storage …”, as insignificant extra-solution activities per MPEP 2106.05(g), it is insignificant pre-solution activity at Step 2A Prong 2 such as data gathering, receiving or sending to the hosted storage of the storage system. And at Step 2B, this is well-understood routine and conventional (WURC) and Berkheimer is an evidence of WURC. As described in the specification at paragraphs [0133]-[0134], etc. as evidence under MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
“replaying the plurality of transaction records as ordered in a first record chain” recites a mental process as replaying data. There is nothing specific recited as to how the replaying is processed to order the plurality of transaction records in the record chain. Instead this merely recites that the abstract idea of replaying the plurality of transaction records is implemented on a computer per MPEP 2106.05(f).
At step 2A(ii):
The claim recites the following additional elements:
That the computer-readable storage medium is “one or more processors” insignificant extra solution activities per MPEP 2106.05(g).
At step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Claims 16-20 are similar to claims 2-6 and therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaveri et al. (US 20170011062 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 20190325055 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zaveri discloses a method comprising:
sending, by a storage record engine of a storage system (“EOS client”), a plurality of transaction records to hosted storage of the storage system (Fig.6, Fig.7; abstract and ¶[0077]-[0078]-[0079], Zaveri, i.e., “EOS client” sending service transactions to EOS server “hosted storage”);
sending, by the storage record engine, a plurality of checkpoint records to the hosted storage such that the plurality of transaction records are interleaved with the plurality of checkpoint records (abstract; ¶[0069]-[0070],[0074] [0080], Zaveri, i.e., “EOS client” issuing/sending a checkpoint acknowledgement as prune records to EOS server “hosted storage” to thereby prevent exhaustion of the storage resources, while also minimizing logging overhead of the server); and
replaying, by the storage record engine, the plurality of transaction records as ordered in a first record chain (Fig.6, Fig.7; abstract;¶[0070]-[0071] and [0080], Zaveri, i.e., replaying all transactions as ordered in entries chain hash index).
Zaveri, however, does not explicitly disclose sending a plurality of checkpoint records concurrently and the plurality of checkpoint records as ordered in the record chain while skipping interleaved transaction records.
Lee discloses sending a plurality of checkpoint records concurrently (¶[0029]-[0030] and [0042]-[0045], Lee) and the plurality of checkpoint records as ordered in the record chain while skipping interleaved transaction records (¶[0090] and [0094], Lee).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, having both Zaveri and Lee before them to incorporate transaction records that are interleaved with the checkpoint records of Lee into Zaveri, as taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate transaction records with interleaved checkpoint records into Zaveri, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance recovery data records (¶[0028]-[0029], Lee).
Regarding claim 2, Zaveri/Lee combination discloses wherein a transaction record is generated by the storage record engine based on an update describing a modification to superblock metadata of the storage system or a modification to individual chunk metadata of the storage system (abstract and ¶[0040], Zaveri, i.e.,. maintaining states of host-visible containers, such as ranges of LUNs, and performing data management functions, such as creation of snapshots and clones based on changes to the volume metadata in the log volume layer).
Regarding claim 3, Zaveri/Lee combination discloses writing a checkpoint start record (¶[0040]-[0041] and [0056], Zaveri); and blocking a commit of a transaction record of the plurality of the transaction records (¶[0040]-[0041], Zaveri); wherein the transaction record antedates the checkpoint start record (¶[0040]-[0041], Zaveri).
Regarding claim 4, Zaveri/Lee combination discloses sending a checkpoint chunk segment index map record to the hosted storage (¶[0057]-[0059], Zaveri); wherein the checkpoint chunk segment index map record describes a chunk segment index map stored at a sealed superblock of the hosted storage (¶[0056]-[0059] and [0061], Zaveri).
Regarding claim 5, Zaveri/Lee combination discloses identifying an open superblock of the hosted storage based on the checkpoint chunk segment index map record (¶[0056]-[0059] and [0061], Zaveri).
Regarding claim 6, Zaveri/Lee combination discloses wherein replaying the plurality of transaction records is performed after replaying checkpoint records of a latest checkpoint (¶[0028] and [0083], Zaveri).
Regarding claim 7, Zaveri/Lee combination discloses wherein the plurality of checkpoint records comprises checkpoint superblock metadata records and checkpoint chunk metadata records, and the plurality of checkpoint records are ordered in a second record chain (¶[0056]-[0059] and [0061], Zaveri).
Regarding claim 8, Zaveri discloses a system comprising: one or more processors (processors “CPU” 210 and 270 of Fig. 2, Zaveri); and memory (memory 220 of Fig. 2, Zaveri) communicatively coupled to the one or more processors (memory coupled to processor of Fig. 2, Zaveri), the memory storing computer-executable modules executable by the one or more processors that, when executed by the one or more processors, perform associated operations, the computer-executable modules comprising: a metadata committing module further comprising a first record sending submodule executable by the one or more processors to send a plurality of transaction records to hosted storage of the storage system (Fig.6, Fig.7; abstract and ¶[0077]-[0078]-[0079], Zaveri, i.e., “EOS client” sending service transactions to EOS server “hosted storage”); a checkpoint committing module further comprising a second record sending submodule executable by the one or more processors to send a plurality of checkpoint records to the hosted storage such that the plurality of transaction records are interleaved with the plurality of checkpoint records (abstract; ¶[0069]-[0070],[0074] [0080], Zaveri, i.e., “EOS client” issuing/sending a checkpoint acknowledgement as prune records to EOS server “hosted storage” to thereby prevent exhaustion of the storage resources, while also minimizing logging overhead of the server); and a transaction log replaying module further comprising a first records replaying submodule executable by the one or more processors to replay the plurality of transaction records as ordered in a first record chain (Fig.6, Fig.7; abstract;¶[0070]-[0071] and [0080], Zaveri, i.e., replaying all transactions as ordered in entries chain hash index).
Zaveri, however, does not explicitly disclose sending a plurality of checkpoint records concurrently and the plurality of checkpoint records as ordered in the record chain while skipping interleaved transaction records.
Lee discloses sending a plurality of checkpoint records concurrently (¶[0029]-[0030] and [0042]-[0045], Lee) and the plurality of checkpoint records as ordered in the record chain while skipping interleaved transaction records (¶[0090] and [0094], Lee).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, having both Zaveri and Lee before them to incorporate transaction records that are interleaved with the checkpoint records of Lee into Zaveri, as taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate transaction records with interleaved checkpoint records into Zaveri, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance recovery data records (¶[0028]-[0029], Lee).
Regarding claim 9, Zaveri/Lee combination discloses generating a transaction record based on an update describing a modification to superblock metadata of the storage system or a modification to individual chunk metadata of the storage system (abstract and ¶[0040], Zaveri, i.e.,. maintaining states of host-visible containers, such as ranges of LUNs, and performing data management functions, such as creation of snapshots and clones based on changes to the volume metadata in the log volume layer).
Regarding claim 10, Zaveri/Lee combination discloses wherein the checkpoint committing module further comprises: a start writing submodule executable by the one or more processors to write a checkpoint start record (¶[0040]-[0041] and [0056], Zaveri); and blocking a commit of a transaction record of the plurality of the transaction records (¶[0040]-[0041], Zaveri); wherein the transaction record antedates the checkpoint start record (¶[0040]-[0041], Zaveri).
Regarding claim 11, Zaveri/Lee combination discloses wherein the checkpoint committing module further comprises a third record sending submodule executable by the one or more processors to send a checkpoint chunk segment index map record to the hosted storage (¶[0057]-[0059], Zaveri) and wherein the checkpoint chunk segment index map record describes a chunk segment index map stored at a sealed superblock of the hosted storage (¶[0056]-[0059] and [0061], Zaveri).
Regarding claim 12, Zaveri/Lee combination discloses wherein the transaction log replaying module further comprises a superblock identifying submodule executable by the one or more processors to identify an open superblock of the hosted storage based on the checkpoint chunk segment index map record (¶[0056]-[0059] and [0061], Zaveri).
Regarding claim 13, Zaveri/Lee combination discloses wherein the first records replaying submodule is executable by the one or more processors to replay the plurality of transaction records by replaying transaction records after a second records replaying submodule of the transaction log replaying module is executed by the one or more processors to replay checkpoint records of a latest checkpoint (¶[0028] and [0083], Zaveri).
Regarding claim 14, Zaveri/Lee combination discloses wherein the plurality of checkpoint records comprises checkpoint superblock metadata records and checkpoint chunk metadata records (¶[0040]-[0041] and [0056], Zaveri).
Regarding claim 15, Zaveri discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions executable by one or more processors (processors “CPU” 210 and 270 of Fig. 2, Zaveri), that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: sending, by a storage record engine of a storage system (“EOS client”), a plurality of transaction records to hosted storage of the storage system (Fig.6, Fig.7; abstract and ¶[0077]-[0078]-[0079], Zaveri, i.e., “EOS client” sending service transactions to EOS server “hosted storage”);
sending, by the storage record engine, a plurality of checkpoint records to the hosted storage such that the plurality of transaction records are interleaved with the plurality of checkpoint records (abstract; ¶[0069]-[0070],[0074] [0080], Zaveri, i.e., “EOS client” issuing/sending a checkpoint acknowledgement as prune records to EOS server “hosted storage” to thereby prevent exhaustion of the storage resources, while also minimizing logging overhead of the server); and
replaying, by the storage record engine, the plurality of transaction records as ordered in a first record chain (Fig.6, Fig.7; abstract;¶[0070]-[0071] and [0080], Zaveri, i.e., replaying all transactions as ordered in entries chain hash index).
Zaveri, however, does not explicitly disclose sending a plurality of checkpoint records concurrently and the plurality of checkpoint records as ordered in the record chain while skipping interleaved transaction records.
Lee discloses sending a plurality of checkpoint records concurrently (¶[0029]-[0030] and [0042]-[0045], Lee) and the plurality of checkpoint records as ordered in the record chain while skipping interleaved transaction records (¶[0090] and [0094], Lee).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, having both Zaveri and Lee before them to incorporate transaction records that are interleaved with the checkpoint records of Lee into Zaveri, as taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate transaction records with interleaved checkpoint records into Zaveri, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance recovery data records (¶[0028]-[0029], Lee).
Regarding claim 16, Zaveri/Lee combination discloses wherein a transaction record is generated by the storage record engine based on an update describing a modification to superblock metadata of the storage system or a modification to individual chunk metadata of the storage system (abstract and ¶[0040], Zaveri, i.e.,. maintaining states of host-visible containers, such as ranges of LUNs, and performing data management functions, such as creation of snapshots and clones based on changes to the volume metadata in the log volume layer).
Regarding claim 17, Zaveri/Lee combination discloses wherein the operations further comprise: writing, by the storage record engine, a checkpoint start record (Fig.1; ¶[0019] and [0022], Craft, i.e., writing a start transaction for X1 to intention log 16 ); and blocking a commit of a transaction record of the plurality of the transaction records (¶[0040]-[0041], Zaveri); wherein the transaction record antedates the checkpoint start record (¶[0040]-[0041], Zaveri).
Regarding claim 18, Zaveri/Lee combination discloses wherein the operations further comprise sending, by the storage record engine, a checkpoint chunk segment index map record to the hosted storage(¶[0057]-[0059], Zaveri); wherein the checkpoint chunk segment index map record describes a chunk segment index map stored at a sealed superblock of the hosted storage (¶[0056]-[0059] and [0061], Zaveri).
Regarding claim 19, Zaveri/Lee combination discloses wherein the operations further comprise identifying an open superblock of the hosted storage based on the checkpoint chunk segment index map record (¶[0056]-[0059] and [0061], Zaveri).
Regarding claim 20, Zaveri/Lee combination discloses wherein replaying, by the storage record engine, the plurality of transaction records is performed after replaying, by the storage record engine, checkpoint records of a latest checkpoint (¶[0028] and [0083], Zaveri).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (US 20220382734 A1) disclose granularly timestamped concurrency control for key-value store.
Bennett (US 20140310483 A1) discloses method for operating flash memory system in computing system, involves assigning sequence number to data elements to determine latest version of data elements, and setting flag to indicate when sequence number is not valid for user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH B THAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4029. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 7-4:30.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached on 571-272-4078. 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.
/HANH B THAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
February 25, 2026