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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 1, 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Application 18/276,131 is a National Stage of International Application No. PCT/US2023/027736 filed July 14, 2023, claiming priority based on Indian Patent Application No. 202321006920 filed February 3, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 10, 2026, April 7, 2026, May 7, 2026, May 18, 2026, and July 24, 2026 were filed before the mailing date of this non-final action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a final rejection dated April 2, 2026. Applicant submitted an RCE on July 1, 2026 in which claims 1, 5, 9, 11, 15, 19, and 20 were amended and claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, and 16-18 were cancelled. Therefore, claims 1, 5, 9, 11, 15, 19, and 20 are currently pending and subject to the below non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
101:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that any abstract idea recited by the claims is integrated into a practical application. Specifically, that by “virtue of changing the communication path to improve a value related to usage of renewable energy sources, there is a self-evident improvement with respect to energy usage in communication networks which constitutes both an improvement over problems in the prior art and a technological improvement (less non-renewable energy usage)” (Remarks p. 8). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “changing the communication path” is recited at a high level of generality, which indicates that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see the 101 rejection below for more detail).
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
103:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 9, 11, 15, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, 11, and 20 recite “identify whether each energy source powering the identified one or more network resources is a renewable energy source or a non-renewable energy source” (emphasis added). It appears that the claims include a typographical/grammatical error. Examiner notes that there is no antecedent basis for “each energy source”. The use of “each” implies a selection from two or more energy sources, which the claims do not recite. For the purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted to read, “identify whether an energy source powering the identified one or more network resources is a renewable energy source or a non-renewable energy source” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5, 9, 15, and 19 are objected to by virtue of dependency on claims 1 and 11.
Claim 9 and 19 recite “wherein network devices in the communication path are included in the one or more network resources utilized to provide the communication service to the user device” (emphasis added). It appears that the claims include a typographical/grammatical error. Examiner notes that, in the case of one network resource, the single network resource cannot include multiple network devices. For the purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted to read, “wherein one or more network devices in the communication path are included in the one or more network resources utilized to provide the communication service to the user device” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 11, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite, “change a communication path utilized to provide the communication service to the user device to improve the value related to the usage of the renewable energy source for the user device to receive the communication service” (emphasis added). This limitation is not supported by the specification. Applicant does not cite any particular sections of the specification as supporting this limitation. Applicant’s specification teaches: “if the user selected only renewable energy sources, then a base station in a user device's path that uses non-renewable energy sources (e.g., fossil fuels) can refuse to accept, deny, or block a handoff procedure between another base station that does use renewable energy sources” [0039]; “various suggestions for further reducing emissions” including “the user changing certain network usage behaviors” [0042]; and allowing third parties to “further optimize the operator's network and further manage a user/customer's energy consumption usage” [0043]. Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification does not explicitly define a “communication path” nor does it describe what “changing” a communication path entails or includes. There are no other sections of Applicant’s specification that teach the amended limitations. Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 20 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 5, 9, 15, and 19 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claims 1 and 11.
Claims 5 and 15 recite, “wherein the report comprises a change in tax savings or tax credits resulting from changing the communication path utilized to provide the communication service to the user device” (emphasis added). This limitation is not supported by the specification. Applicant does not cite any particular sections of the specification as supporting this limitation. Applicant’s specification teaches: using a report “to qualify for certain tax credits” or for “tax reporting purposes” [0042]; and a report that includes “tax savings or tax credits associated with usage of the network resources” [0061]. Examiner notes that tax savings or tax credits is not the same as a change in tax savings or tax credits. There are no other sections of Applicant’s specification that teach the amended limitations. Therefore, claims 5 and 15 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 9 and 19 recite, “wherein the calculated value is improved due to a reduction in a total amount of power consumed by the network devices that utilize a non-renewable energy source in the communication path, resulting from changing the communication path utilized to provide the communication service to the user device” (emphasis added). This limitation is not supported by the specification. Applicant does not cite any particular sections of the specification as supporting this limitation. Applicant’s specification teaches: the invention “helps to reduce the carbon footprint of network service providers/operators and its users” [0005]; calculating an “energy consumption amount, value, or percentage for each user device” [0040]; and “include a detailed breakdown of the user's activity, including … the user's percentage contribution in reducing emissions, and various suggestions for further reducing emissions” [0042]. There are no other sections of Applicant’s specification that teach the amended limitations. Therefore, claims 9 and 19 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 9 and 19 recite, “wherein the calculated value is improved due to a reduction in a total amount of power consumed by the network devices that utilize a non-renewable enemy source in the communication path, resulting from changing the communication path utilized to provide the communication service to the user device” (emphasis added). This limitation is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear whether this limitation is merely describing the calculated value from claims 1 and 11, or is further improving upon the value. For the purposes of examination and in light of the specification, the claims are interpreted to read, “wherein the calculated value is further improved due to a reduction in a total amount of power consumed by the network devices that utilize a non-renewable enemy source in the communication path, resulting from changing the communication path utilized to provide the communication service to the user device” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5, 9, 11, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 recite, analyze network traffic of a user receiving a communication service;
identify, based on the analyzed network traffic, one or more resources utilized to provide the communication service to the user device;
identify whether each energy source powering the identified one or more network resources is a renewable energy source or a non-renewable energy source;
calculate, based on the identified energy source, a value related to a usage of the renewable energy source for the user to receive the communication service; and
improve the value related to the usage of the renewable energy source for the user device to receive the communication service.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, calculating a value related to a usage of the renewable energy source for a user is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities. Examiner particularly notes that the energy consumption value is used to allow customers and subscribers to view their individual energy consumption usage and improve customer satisfaction (see Applicant’s Specification paragraph [0005]).
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, identifying a resource using a renewable energy source, analyzing network traffic, and calculating a value related to a usage of the renewable energy source can all be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 11, and 20 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”; and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: a memory storage (claim 1), at least one processor (claims 1, 11, and 20), a user device (claims 1, 11, and 20), a communication network (claims 1, 11, and 20), one or more network resources (claims 1, 11, and 20), and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (claim 20). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Additionally, collecting network traffic for analysis amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity). Changing a communication path utilized to provide the communication service to the user is also a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., post-solution activity), which is an insignificant application, similar to “cutting hair after first determining the hair style” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
With respect to the extra-solution activity of collecting network traffic for analysis, the collection of network traffic is defined at a high-level of generality and appears to consist of generic computer functions (i.e., transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Examiner notes that paragraph [0037] of Applicant’s specification, as well as Fig. 2, generically disclose receiving and analyzing network traffic data at a high-level of generality demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature.
With respect to the extra-solution activity of changing a communication path utilized to provide the communication service to the user, neither the changing nor the communication path are described by Applicant’s specification (see the 112(a) rejection above for more detail) indicating that these are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 5, 9, 15, and 19, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations, without adding any additional elements for analysis. Thus, claims 5, 9, 15, and 19 are also ineligible for the reasons stated above with respect to independent claims 1, 11, and 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103, which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0223159 to Ansari et al. (Ansari) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,349,339 to Streete et al. (Streete).
As to claim 1, Ansari teaches, A system comprising: a memory storage storing computer-executable instructions; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory storage, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to (“… In a very basic configuration 402, computing device 400 typically includes one or more processors 404 and a system memory 406. A memory bus 408 may be used for communicating between processor 404 and system memory 406 …” [0043-0051]):
analyze network traffic of a user device receiving a communication service provided by a communication network (“As depicted, a diagram 100 shows an example heterogeneous cellular network structure with three example pico- or femto-cells. The cellular network structure may include an MBS 102 (for example, constructed on a tower 108) in wireless communication (124) with communication devices 104 and 106 [i.e., user devices] directly …” and “… The BS side computation may determine the traffic load in the BS and update the advertising traffic load. Based on the advertised traffic load, the BS's energy-latency coefficient, and the BS's green traffic capacity, the user side algorithm may select a BS to reduce the BS's power consumption. The BSs may broadcast their traffic loads after the system exhibits the stationary performance …” [0024-0025 and 0033-0040]);
identify, based on the analyzed network traffic, one or more network resources utilized to provide the communication service to the user device (“… MBSs and PBSs may be deployed to provide data communications to an area. Denoting B as the set of BSs [i.e., network resources]. the traffic may be assumed to arrive according to a Poisson process with the arrival rate per unit area at location x equaling to .lamda.(x), and the traffic loads may have a general distribution with average traffic load of v(x). Assuming a mobile user at location x is associated with BS j, then the user's data rate r.sub.j(x) may be generally expressed as a logarithmic function of the perceived signal to interference plus noise ratio, SINR.sub.i,j …” and “… The controller may then enable advertisement of the green energy usage status and the latency status of the base stations [i.e., network resources] to a communication device and detect a selection of one of the base stations by the communication device [i.e., user device]. A coverage area of the selected base station may then be updated based on the selection” [0023-0025 and 0039-0040]);
identify whether each energy source powering the identified one or more network resources is a renewable energy source or a non-renewable energy source (“As green energy technologies advance, green energy such as sustainable biofuels, solar and wind energy may be utilized to power BSs. Other environmentally friendly green energy sources (including renewable energy sources) may be alternatively or additionally used, such as tidal/wave energy, geothermal energy, environmentally friendly/friendlier batteries, and/or others or combination thereof …” and “… Therefore, the BSs may be powered by hybrid energy sources: on-grid energy [i.e., non-renewable energy source] and green energy [i.e., renewable energy source]. If green energy generated by solar power is not sufficient, the BSs may consume on-grid energy (and/or perhaps may obtain energy from some other green energy source) …” and “… According to yet other examples, the energy consumption may include an on-grid energy consumption and/or an off-grid energy consumption …” [0022 and 0027 and 0063-0064]);
calculate, based on the identified energy source, a value related to a usage of the renewable energy source (“… Analyzing the green energy usage status and the latency status of the two or more base stations may include computing an index [i.e., a value related to a usage of the renewable energy source] for each base station based on the one or more metrics …” and “… The controller may be configured to analyze a green energy usage status and a latency status of the two or more base stations based on one or more metrics associated with the two or more base stations, where the one or more metrics include a traffic load, an energy latency coefficient, and a green traffic load associated with each base station; compute an index for each base station based on the analysis …” [0063 and 0069]);
and change a communication path utilized to provide the communication service to the user device to improve the value related to the usage of the renewable energy source for the user device to receive the communication service (“… Green energy may be utilized to reduce the on-grid power consumption and thus reduce the CO.sub.2 emissions while on-grid power may be utilized as a backup power source” and “… The controller may then enable advertisement of the green energy usage status and the latency status of the base stations to a communication device and detect a selection of one of the base stations by the communication device. A coverage area of the selected base station [i.e., communication path] may then be updated based on the selection” and “… The processor may further compute a particular traffic load vector that reduces the green traffic load based on the perceived traffic load, converge the traffic load associated with the selected base station based on the particular traffic load vector, and update the coverage area of the selected base station based on the particular traffic load vector” [0021-0022 and 0040 and 0067] Examiner notes that, in light of Applicant’s specification, “improve” is interpreted to mean any change in the value that reflects a reduction in total power consumed from non-renewable sources).
While Ansari teaches a value related to a usage of the renewable energy source, Ansari does not teach a value for the user device. However, Streete teaches a value for the user device (“… The tool 124 records, using the power monitor 122 configured in the power distribution units 120, an interval power consumption measurement of each of the equipment devices at ongoing intervals, estimates an energy consumption of the equipment devices over a specified period of time by combining the recorded interval power consumption measurements over the specified period of time …” and “An energy usage estimation module 316 receives power consumption measurements from the power distribution unit 120 and estimates an energy consumption used by each equipment device 114 over an extended period of time …” [col. 4, lines 35-46 and col. 7, lines 27-61]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the value for the user device of Streete for the value of Ansari. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Streete that doing so simplifies the requirements to determine infrastructure usage [col. 2, lines 9-10].
Regarding claim 11, this claim is essentially coextensive with claim 1 other than it recites a method instead of a system. Because Ansari teaches a method as well as a system (see at least Ansari [0005]), claim 11 can be rejected with the same rationale as claim 1, relying on the same combination of Ansari and Streete to render the claim obvious. Similar dependent claims below will be treated together for the sake of brevity.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is essentially coextensive with claim 1 other than it recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium instead of a system. Because Ansari teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium as well as a system (see at least Ansari [0008]), claim 20 can be rejected with the same rationale as claim 1, relying on the same combination of Ansari and Streete to render the claim obvious. Similar dependent claims below will be treated together for the sake of brevity.
As to claims 9 and 19, Ansari in view of Streete teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Ansari further teaches, wherein network devices in the communication path are included in the one or more network resources utilized to provide the communication service to the user device (“This disclosure is generally drawn, inter alia, to methods, apparatus, systems, devices, and/or computer program products related to association of a base station [i.e., network devices] with a communication device [i.e., the user device] through a GALA approach in a wireless network, such as a heterogeneous cellular network …” and “In heterogeneous cellular networks with hybrid energy supplies, one of the challenges may be to properly associate mobile users with the serving BSs …” [0018-0019 and 0023]).
and wherein the calculated value is improved due to a reduction in a total amount of power consumed by the network devices that utilize a non-renewable enemy source in the communication path, resulting from changing the communication path utilized to provide the communication service to the user device (“… The GALA approach may not only increase the utilization of green energy in order to reduce the on-grid power consumption of the heterogeneous cellular network [i.e., a reduction in a total amount of power consumed], but also reduce the traffic delivery latency of the network to enhance the network QoS” and “… Since PBSs usually consume less power than the MBS, the GALA approach may further offload traffic from the MBS to PBSs to reduce power consumption. During the traffic offloading, GALA approach may increase the utilization of green energy to reduce the on-grid power consumption …” [0021-0023 and 0034-0036]).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0223159 to Ansari et al. (Ansari) in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,349,339 to Streete et al. (Streete), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0275263 to Carlin, Jr et al. (Carlin, Jr).
As to claims 5 and 15, Ansari in view of Streete teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Ansari in view of Streete does not teach, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to send a report to the user device, and wherein the report comprises a change in tax savings or tax credits resulting from changing the communication path utilized to provide the communication service to the user device. However, Carlin, Jr teaches, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to send a report to the user device, and wherein the report comprises a change in tax savings or tax credits resulting from changing the communication path utilized to provide the communication service to the user device (“… Upgrade and/or set of Upgrades may be quantified in terms of the (a) total cost to the user, which may include upfront cost and/or ongoing cost relative to the (b) total savings potential, which may include both the available government tax benefits and specific contributed ongoing energy cost savings …” [0049-0052] Examiner notes Fig. 9 showing “Federal Tax Credit” and “federal Tax Rebates” as part of “Your Savings Plan” in the upper left box).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to send a report to the user device, and wherein the report comprises a change in tax savings or tax credits resulting from changing the communication path utilized to provide the communication service to the user device, as taught by Carlin, Jr with the system of Ansari in view of Streete. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Carlin, Jr that doing so would make saving energy easy and attainable for all consumers [0013].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0043548 to Beekhuis (Beekhuis)
Japanese Patent Publication No. 2021189845 to Yasushi et al. (Yasushi)
NPL “Energy-Aware Resource Management in Heterogeneous Cellular Networks With Hybrid Energy Sources” to Fletscher et al. (Fletscher)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights