DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to Application 18/419129 filed on 1/22/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-22 are presented for examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/365847 (hereinafter ‘847) in view of Tomasicchio et al. (hereinafter Tomasicchio) US 2019/0028185 A1.
Copending application ‘847 discloses most of claim 1 limitations [lines 1-11].
However, copending application ‘847 does not disclose copending application ‘129 does not disclose “regularly generating a quality of experience metric for the particular channel of the plurality of channels;” and “dynamically adjusting the bandwidth allocated to the particular channel of the plurality of channels based upon the quality of experience metric.”
Tomasicchio directed to a telecommunications multi-beam satellite is provided that is controllable by a network control center via one or more control channels (abstract) teaches regularly generating a quality of experience metric for the particular channel of the plurality of channels (Fig. 2 & ¶0126-¶0138; the priority level is computed by the TRM 121 on the basis of the terminal and/or group and/or mission information configured within the on-board database by taking into account the content of the capacity request (Terminal_id, Routing_id); [0127] after marking (block 22), the capacity requests are queued (i.e., buffered) according to the QoS class they pertain to (block 23); the information on the QoS class is conveyed in the frame of each capacity request as a subfield of the Routing_id information element. This is done in real time which implies “regularly generating” a QoS. For example, OPC 12 [management server] regulates traffic resources in real-time, see ¶0098 & ¶0127-¶0129); and dynamically adjusting the bandwidth allocated to the particular channel of the plurality of channels based upon the quality of experience metric (Fig. 2 & ¶0126-¶0138; adjusting bandwidth according to QoS class [based upon QoS]. Also ¶0037; see dynamic bandwidth allocation (DBAC). See also ¶0098-¶0102 & ¶0132-¶0138 the OPC 12 [management server] is designed to process signaling messages received from ground terminals, manage traffic resources, control frame-by-frame and in real-time the BSP 11 for what concerns input-to-output interconnections, so as to dynamically assign the available resources [like bandwidth] to different satellite beams on the basis of ground terminals' needs; and [0102] handle control messages received from a ground NCC (not shown in FIG. 1), on the basis of which said OPC 12 can be reconfigured).
It would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Tomasicchio into the system of copending application ‘847 in order to exploit reconfigurable software radio technologies and implements fast non-blocking switch routing algorithms driven by a dynamic bandwidth allocation scheme to dynamically control the digital transparent switching/routing stage (i.e., the BSP 11) so that the latter switches several traffic bursts in frequency, space and time domain on different destination satellite beams (¶0219).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the disclosure states “…on the order of less than two seconds (often less than 400 milliseconds) are typically are possible, rather than the much slower TDMA transitions….” See ¶0146. Examiner suggested to amend the specification to state “…are typically possible…” without a second “are.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-7, 11, 13, 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3, 5 and 7: include “…further for…” this is not the correct language to use for drafting US applications. Examiner suggests replacing this language to “comprising” or other alternatives that is common/used in US applications.
Claim 4 is objected to “quality of experience metric is a selected one of” should not include “a.” claims 11 and 18 are substantially similar, thus the same rationale applies.
Claim 6 recites “…access to a larger proportion of a total of available…” seems the limitation includes a typo. Examiner suggests amending the limitation to state “…access to a larger portion of total available bandwidth…” claims 13 and 20 are substantially similar, thus the same rationale applies.
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 1-22 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 limitation “…setting a bandwidth available for a particular channel of the plurality of channels at a predetermined maximum” is not clear because Examiner cannot determine the scope of the claim. The specification is silent and provide no more clarification.” See ¶0027 & ¶0144-¶0145. claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar, thus the same rationale applies.
Claim 2 limitation “…file download time compared to the size of the file downloaded,” lacks antecedent basis. Claims 9 and 16 are substantially similar, thus the same rationale applies. Thus, the claims are rejected for indefiniteness.
Claim 3 limitation “…accessible via the internet…” lacks antecedent basis. Thus, the claim is rejected for indefiniteness. Claims 10 and 17 are substantially similar, thus the same rationale applies. Thus, the claims are rejected for indefiniteness.
Claim 6 limitation “…the priority dynamic traffic management profile…” lacks antecedent basis. Claims 13 and 20 are substantially similar, thus the same rationale applies. Thus, the claims are rejected for indefiniteness.
Claim 6 limitation “…may receive a selected one of the following…” is not clear. What does “may receive” mean? It is not positively recited rendering the scope unclear. Also, the limitation includes a typo “…receive a selected…” It should state that “…profile receives one of the followings:” Claims 13 and 20 are substantially similar, thus the same rationale applies. Thus, the claims are rejected for indefiniteness.
Claims 4-5, 7, 11-12, 14, 18-19 and 21-22 are also rejected for depending on rejected base claim.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomasicchio in view of Wells US 2008/0212518 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Tomasicchio teaches a network management system for use with a software defined radio for a mobile network system (¶0037-¶0040; see dynamic bandwidth allocation in SDR. See also Fig. 1 & ¶0095; a reconfigurable regenerative dynamic control sub-system based on SDR technology, that in the following will be referred to as On-board Processor Controller (OPC) and that in FIG. 1 is denoted as a whole by 12), the network management system comprising:
a management server, comprising a computing device (¶0095; Fig. 1 includes On-board Processor Controller (OPC) and that in FIG. 1 is denoted as a whole by 12 [ management server]. The management server/computing device is also similar to TRM 121. See Fig. 2 & ¶0119-¶0122; TRM 121 [computing device/management server], the TRM 121 handles the capacity requests from the ground terminals by assigning the requested resources, if available, on the basis of a priority order which is established by the QoS rules, and generates a routing map indicating switch input-to-output interconnections corresponding to the resource assignment performed), the management server for:
setting a bandwidth available for a particular channel of the plurality of channels at a predetermined maximum (Fig. 2 & ¶0132-¶0138; capacity request scheduling and resource (in particular bandwidth) allocation is then carried out (block 24); the bandwidth allocation includes determining which uplink (U/L) slot(s), within the Frame, can be used by which ground terminal and which is the associated downlink (D/L) slot(s); the allocation process assigns resources to a requesting ground terminal on the basis of the perimeter established at end-to-end connection setup level for the different QoS classes [predetermined maximum bandwidth] and arbitrated by the ground control; it also takes into account the expiration time of the capacity requests in order to de-allocate resources (on the basis of the timestamp) if no updates are received);
regularly generating a quality of experience metric for the particular channel of the plurality of channels (Fig. 2 & ¶0126-¶0138; the priority level is computed by the TRM 121 on the basis of the terminal and/or group and/or mission information configured within the on-board database by taking into account the content of the capacity request (Terminal_id, Routing_id); [0127] after marking (block 22), the capacity requests are queued (i.e., buffered) according to the QoS class they pertain to (block 23); the information on the QoS class is conveyed in the frame of each capacity request as a subfield of the Routing_id information element. This is done in real time which implies “regularly generating” a QoS. For example, OPC 12 [management server] regulates traffic resources in real-time, see ¶0098 & ¶0127-¶0129); and dynamically
adjusting the bandwidth allocated to the particular channel of the plurality of channels based upon the quality of experience metric (Fig. 2 & ¶0126-¶0138; adjusting bandwidth according to QoS class which implies QoS metrics [based upon QoS]. Also ¶0037; see dynamic bandwidth allocation (DBAC). Moreover, see ¶0098-¶0102 & ¶0132-¶0138 the OPC 12 [management server] is designed to process signaling messages received from ground terminals, manage traffic resources, control frame-by-frame and in real-time the BSP 11 for what concerns input-to-output interconnections, so as to dynamically assign the available resources [like bandwidth] to different satellite beams on the basis of ground terminals' needs; and [0102] handle control messages received from a ground NCC (not shown in FIG. 1), on the basis of which said OPC 12 can be reconfigured).
Tomasicchio does not expressly teach “a plurality of satellite transponders, each satellite transponder operating using single channel per carrier (SCPC) transmission to allocate an entire bandwidth of a given frequency channel of a plurality of channels to the network management system;
at least one ground station in communication with the plurality of satellite transponders, the at least one ground station communicating on at least one of the plurality of channels, using the plurality of satellite transponders, to a remote host;”
However, the limitations are obvious as admitted prior art. See applicant’s background i.e. ¶0008. Despite that, Examiner still uses a different reference to reject the claims.
Wells teaches a plurality of satellite transponders (¶0050; transponders 33), each satellite transponder operating using single channel per carrier (SCPC) transmission to allocate an entire bandwidth of a given frequency channel of a plurality of channels to the network management system (¶0004 & ¶0050-¶0053; using SCPC and transponder for bandwidth);
at least one ground station in communication with the plurality of satellite transponders (Fig. 1 -transponders 33), the at least one ground station communicating on at least one of the plurality of channels (Fig. 1- Host 12), using the plurality of satellite transponders, to a remote host (Fig. 1-remote terminal 1).
It would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Wells into the system of Tomasicchio in order to use SCPC links for the return path (¶0017). Utilizing such teachings enable the system/ISP to serve thousands of subscribers with a Committed Bit Rate (CBR) of 2 Mb/s and an SCPC return channel of 128 or 256 Kb/s. Id.
Regarding Claim 2, Tomasicchio in view of Wells teaches the network management system of claim 1 Tomasicchio further teaches wherein the quality of experience metric is based upon at least two of the following factors:
an application type using the particular channel (¶0122-¶0138; determining the request type),
a VIP setting associated with a user of the particular channel (¶0122-¶0138; determining the request type and priority level of the request),
a DNS server lookup time for the particular channel,
a connection time of a user device to the particular channel and a ground-based host,
a time associated with secure socket layer handshake using the particular channel,
a hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) response time for a requested web page,
a file download time compared to the size of the file downloaded,
detection of transfer control protocol (TCP) zero window events in a buffer associated with the particular channel,
a measure of round-trip time (RTT) for the particular channel,
or transmission control protocol (TCP) retransmissions.
Regarding Claim 4, Tomasicchio in view of Wells teaches the network management system of claim 1 Tomasicchio further teaches wherein the quality of experience metric is a selected one of: for a plurality of users of the particular channel (Fig. 2 & ¶0126-¶0138; the priority level is computed by the TRM 121 on the basis of the terminal and/or group and/or mission information configured within the on-board database by taking into account the content of the capacity request (Terminal_id, Routing_id); [0127] after marking (block 22), the capacity requests are queued (i.e., buffered) according to the QoS class they pertain to (block 23); the information on the QoS class is conveyed in the frame of each capacity request as a subfield of the Routing_id information element. This is done in real time which implies “regularly generating” a QoS. For example, OPC 12 [management server] regulates traffic resources in real-time, see ¶0098 & ¶0127-¶0129); for a single user of the particular channel; for a single application type using the particular channel; and for a single type of network traffic on the particular channel (Fig. 2 & ¶0126-¶0138; the priority level is computed by the TRM 121 on the basis of the terminal and/or group and/or mission information configured within the on-board database by taking into account the content of the capacity request (Terminal_id, Routing_id); [0127] after marking (block 22), the capacity requests are queued (i.e., buffered) according to the QoS class they pertain to (block 23); the information on the QoS class is conveyed in the frame of each capacity request as a subfield of the Routing_id information element. This is done in real time which implies “regularly generating” a QoS. For example, OPC 12 [management server] regulates traffic resources in real-time, see ¶0098 & ¶0127-¶0129).
Regarding Claim 5, Tomasicchio in view of Wells teaches the network management system of claim 1 Tomasicchio further teaches wherein the management server is further for: maintaining a database of users having a higher priority of access to the mobile network system (¶0119; TRM 121 includes an on-board database (conveniently updated by the OPC configuration unit/module 129), which stores data and information indicating the characteristics of the resources (configuration of the channels) and the end-to-end connections (typologies, involved terminals, QoS, etc.) communicated by the ground NCC through the control channels. By using said database, which is updated when necessary by the ground NCC through dedicated signaling messages, the TRM 121 handles the capacity requests from the ground terminals by assigning the requested resources, if available, on the basis of a priority order which is established by the QoS rules, and generates a routing map indicating switch input-to-output interconnections corresponding to the resource assignment performed); upon confirmation of the higher priority of access, applying a priority dynamic traffic management profile to those users having a higher priority of access and another dynamic traffic management profile to other users of the mobile network system (¶0098-¶0103; obvious because OPC 12 dynamically assign the available resources to different satellite beams on the basis of ground terminals' needs; handle control messages received from a ground NCC. See also ¶0119 & ¶0122-¶0138 which explains the process of determining higher priority requests where bandwidth is allocated accordingly); and allocating more bandwidth of the particular channel to users with the priority dynamic traffic management profile than to users with another dynamic traffic management profile (¶0098-¶0103; obvious because OPC 12 dynamically assign the available resources to different satellite beams on the basis of ground terminals' needs; handle control messages received from a ground NCC. See also ¶0119 & ¶0122-¶0138 which explains the process of determining higher priority requests where bandwidth is allocated accordingly).
Regarding Claim 6, Tomasicchio in view of Wells teaches the network management system of claim 1 Tomasicchio further teaches wherein the priority dynamic traffic management profile may receive a selected one of the following: access to a higher quality stream for audio or video streaming applications than another dynamic traffic management profile, based upon a detection of application type or data type being transmitted or received using the particular channel (the response is similar to claim 5. Also this limitation is obvious from ¶0122-¶0138; because determining the request type and priority level of the request which includes audio or video. Bandwidth and other resources are allocated accordingly. See citation in claim 5), access to more bandwidth for a chat application than another dynamic traffic management profile, based upon a detection of application type or data type being transmitted or received using the particular channel; and access to a larger proportion of a total of available bandwidth than another dynamic traffic management profile on the particular channel.
Regarding Claim 7, Tomasicchio in view of Wells teaches the network management system of claim 1 Tomasicchio further teaches wherein the management server is further for: categorizing users of the mobile network system into one or more dynamic traffic management profiles (¶0122-¶0138; users make requests. OPC classify QoS into four QoS levels then determines resources to service the request based on the type of request); adjusting bandwidth available to each of the users based upon the dynamic traffic management assigned to each of the users (¶0098-¶0103; obvious because OPC 12 dynamically assign the available resources to different satellite beams on the basis of ground terminals' needs; handle control messages received from a ground NCC. See also ¶0119 & ¶0122-¶0138 which explains the process of determining higher priority requests where bandwidth is allocated accordingly); and allocating bandwidth available to the particular channel of the plurality of channels, based upon the dynamic traffic management profiles assigned to the users reliant upon the particular channel as compared with those otherwise reliant upon the mobile network (obvious from ¶0122-¶0138 because f our QoS classes are identified (Constant Rate, Real Time, Critical Data, Best Effort) and the capacity requests associated with the different QoS classes are served in the following order: [0128] 1. Constant Rate, [0129] 2. Real time, [0130] 3. Critical Data, [0131] 4. Best effort; [0132] capacity request scheduling and resource (in particular bandwidth) allocation is then carried out (block 24); the bandwidth allocation includes determining which uplink (U/L) slot(s), within the Frame, can be used by which ground terminal and which is the associated downlink (D/L) slot(s); the allocation process assigns resources to a requesting ground terminal on the basis of the perimeter established at end-to-end connection setup level for the different QoS classes and arbitrated by the ground control; it also takes into account the expiration time of the capacity requests in order to de-allocate resources (on the basis of the timestamp) if no updates are received).
Claims 8-9, 11-16 and 18-22 are substantially similar, thus the same rationale applies.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomasicchio in view of Wells US 2008/0212518 A1 and further in view of Metzger et al. (hereinafter Metzger) US 2019/0288771 A1.
Regarding Claim 3, Tomasicchio in view of Wells teaches the network management system of claim 1 wherein the management server is further for: regularly generating a set of quality of experience data for the particular channel and a plurality of other channels (Fig. 2 & ¶0126-¶0138; the priority level is computed by the TRM 121 on the basis of the terminal and/or group and/or mission information configured within the on-board database by taking into account the content of the capacity request (Terminal_id, Routing_id); [0127] after marking (block 22), the capacity requests are queued (i.e., buffered) according to the QoS class they pertain to (block 23); the information on the QoS class is conveyed in the frame of each capacity request as a subfield of the Routing_id information element. This is done in real time which implies “regularly generating” a QoS. For example, OPC 12 [management server] regulates traffic resources in real-time, see ¶0098 & ¶0127-¶0129);
Tomasicchio in view of Wells do not expressly teach and generating visualization of the set of quality of experience data in a visual format, accessible via the internet.
Metzger teaches and generating visualization of the set of quality of experience data in a visual format, accessible via the internet (¶0060; table 501, in a first and a second row, a QoS level of 6 is provided to user software payload traffic when a present satellite layer in which the peer satellite device is positioned corresponds to an upper satellite layer, and a QoS level of 3 is provided to the user software payload traffic when the present satellite layer in which the peer satellite device is positioned corresponds to a lower satellite layer. The upper and lower satellite layers can correspond to a cluster or set of satellite devices orbiting together in a predetermined orbital path that has an orbital distance from the surface of the Earth. A lower layer can correspond to a first orbital distance, while the upper layer can correspond to a second orbital distance greater than the first orbital distance. The various orbital layers can have different inclinations or orbital parameters, and need not be concentric or overlapping. In third and fourth rows, a QoS level of 1 is provided to user software payload traffic when GPU circuitry is not present or available on the peer satellite device, and a QoS level of 9 is provided to user software payload traffic when GPU circuitry is present or available on the peer satellite device. This can be employed when particular graphics processing, image processing, or blockchain processing is to be given favored traffic handling to peer satellite devices with GPU hardware features. In fifth and sixth rows, a QoS level of 8 is provided to application image transfer traffic when a satellite type or hardware complement includes communication relay, communication routing, or communication relay features, and a QoS level of 4 is provided to application image transfer traffic when a satellite type or hardware complement includes sensor features or specific sensor features. This can be employed to provide favored traffic handling to satellite devices that have a particular suite of on-board hardware features or functions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Metzger into the system of Tomasicchio in view of Wells in order to identify operational status information for at least a peer satellite device in communication range of the satellite device (abstrat). Based at least on the operational status information, the method includes selecting a quality-of-service level for communications to be transferred to the peer satellite device, and applying the quality service level to transmit data packets to the peer satellite device (abstract).
Claims 10 and 17 are substantially similar, thus the same rationale applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-5PM.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
MAHRAN ABU ROUMI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2455
/MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455