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 .
Claims 1-10 are pending for examination. Claims 1, 9, and 10 are independent.
Response to Amendment
The office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 07/16/2026. As
directed by the amendments claims 1, 2, 9 and 10 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
Examiner response: Examiner respectfully disagrees, the amended limitations do not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Applicant arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101:
The Claims Do Not Recite a Judicial Exception Under Step 2A, Prong One
Examiner response: Examiner respectfully disagrees, the limitations describing generating second input data and adjusting values are addressed under steps 2A prong 1 as a recitation of a mental process with the aid of pen and paper (i.e., evaluation). The other elements of claim 1 such as hardware components are addressed in the rejection as additional elements and not mental steps.
Applicant further argues:
II. Even if a Judicial Exception Were Considered Recited, the Claims Integrate It Into a Practical Application (Step 2A, Prong Two) […]
Examiner response: Examiner respectfully disagrees, applicant states “These operations improve the functioning of the device or system itself and therefore constitute a technological solution to a technological problem, which is recognized by the guidance as a hallmark of eligibility.” It is unclear what the improvement is and how it improves function of a device with no further explanation given. Applicants claimed improvement is describing an improvement to an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(a) says an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. The apparatus with units are generic computer elements (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant further argues:
III. Step 2B - The Claims Include Significantly More
Examiner response: Examiner respectfully disagrees, the additional elements as disclosed in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well, understood, routine and conventional activity as disclosed in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea. The claim limitations are a combination of mental steps under step 2A Prong 1, and additional elements under steps 2A Prong 2 & 2B as detailed in the 101 rejection below.
Applicant arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Examiner response: Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“holding unit” in claim 1
Para 0025, 0030, and 0017 of applicant’s specification.
“generation unit” in claim 1 and 8
Para 0022 and 0024 of applicant’s specification.
“adjustment unit” in claims 1-2 and 5-7
Para 0022 and 0027 of applicant’s specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding Claim 1:
2A Prong 1:
(This step for generating second input data is practically performable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process with the aid of pen and paper (i.e., evaluation).) and
, based on an adjustment method indicating rules for each of the plurality of fields. (This step for adjusting values is practically performable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process with the aid of pen and paper (i.e., evaluation).)
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
An information processing apparatus comprising: (The apparatus is understood to be a generic computer element - See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
a holding unit configured to hold first input data having a plurality of fields, for use in machine learning; (The holding unit is understood to be a generic computer element - See MPEP 2106.05(f). The step directed to storing information, which is understood to be insignificant extra- solution activity and data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
a generation unit configured to (The generation unit is understood to be a generic computer element - See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
an adjustment unit configured to (The adjustment unit is understood to be a generic computer element - See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
An information processing apparatus comprising: (The apparatus is understood to be a generic computer element - See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
a holding unit configured to hold first input data having a plurality of fields, for use in machine learning; (The holding unit is understood to be a generic computer element - See MPEP 2106.05(f). This step is directed to storing information, which is understood to be insignificant extra-solution activity and is well understood, routine and conventional activity as identified by the court (MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll)(IV)))))
a generation unit configured to (The generation unit is understood to be a generic computer element - See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
an adjustment unit configured to (The adjustment unit is understood to be a generic computer element - See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea
are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are
well, understood, routine and conventional activity as disclosed in combination
of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Regarding Claim 9: see the rejection of claim 1 above. Same rationale applies.
Regarding Claim 10: see the rejection of claim 1 above. Same rationale applies.
2A Prong 2 & 2B: The claim recites another additional element “A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing an information processing apparatus to execute an information processing method, the information processing method comprising:” (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Regarding Claim 2
2A Prong 1:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment unit adjusts the values stored in the plurality of fields in the second input data, using a table in which field names of a target and an adjustment method for each of the field names of the target are recorded. (This step is practically performable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process with the aid of pen and paper (i.e., evaluation).)
2A Prong 2 & 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Regarding Claim 3
2A Prong 1:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the adjustment method is at least one of replacement by a fixed value, replacement by a recalculated value, and replacement by a value calculated with reference to a value stored in a depended-on field. (This step is practically performable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process with the aid of pen and paper (i.e., evaluation).)
2A Prong 2 & 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Regarding Claim 4
2A Prong 1: The claim does not recite any Abstract idea.
2A Prong 2 & 2B:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first input data is network packet data, and wherein the plurality of fields is a plurality of fields in a packet header in network packet data. (The specification of data to be stored is understood to be a field of use limitation. The limitation further specifies the first input data - See MPEP 2106.05(h).)
Regarding Claim 5
2A Prong 1:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment unit adjusts the values stored in the plurality of fields in the second input data, using a table in which a field name, a field size, a field position, and a fixed value for replacement in adjustment, of a target, are recorded. (This step is practically performable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process with the aid of pen and paper (i.e., evaluation).)
2A Prong 2 & 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Regarding Claim 6
2A Prong 1:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment unit adjusts a value stored in a field to be referred to in the machine learning, among the values stored in the plurality of fields in the second input data. (This step is practically performable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process with the aid of pen and paper (i.e., evaluation).)
2A Prong 2 & 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Regarding Claim 7
2A Prong 1:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment unit does not use an inconsistent value in the machine learning, among the values stored in the plurality of fields in the second input data. (This step is practically performable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process with the aid of pen and paper (i.e., judgment/evaluation).)
2A Prong 2 & 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Regarding Claim 8
2A Prong 1:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the generation unit generates the second input data having the plurality of fields, by use of a data generation algorithm not using machine learning, based on the first input data. This step is practically performable in the human mind and is understood to be a recitation of a mental process with the aid of pen and paper (i.e., evaluation).)
2A Prong 2 & 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 20210160268 A1, hereinafter “Anderson”) in view of Keller et al. (US 7,792,117 B1, hereinafter "Keller") and Olderdissen et al. (US 2010/0040085 A1, hereinafter "Olderdissen").
Regarding Claim 1
Anderson discloses: An information processing apparatus comprising:
a holding unit configured to hold first input data having a plurality of fields, for use in machine learning; ([Para 0051, 0065, and Fig 4-5] describes capturing traffic data (i.e. holding first input data) that includes header fields for use of training a machine learning model. [Para 0050] states “captured traffic data 402 may be captured by one or more devices operating in a sandbox testing environment.” Examiner interprets the capturing device as a holding unit.)
a generation unit configured to generate second input data having a plurality of fields, for use in the machine learning, based on the first input data ([Para 0037, 0047-0049, 0059, 0067-0068, and Fig 4-5] describes generating synthetic traffic data (i.e. second input data) that includes header fields for use of training a machine learning model and based on the captured/received traffic data (i.e. first input data). [Para 0048-0049] describes synthetic data process 248, which may include computer executable instructions executed by the processor 220 (i.e. generation unit).); and
an adjustment unit configured to adjust values stored in the plurality of fields in the second input data ([Para 0067] “Example system-dependent characteristics in the synthetic traffic data that may be varied based on the targeted environment may include, but are not limited to, TLS-related information of the flows (e.g., the cipersuite used, the advertised TLS extensions, etc.), DNS-related information, HTTP header fields, inter-packet timing information, packet size/length information, a network MTU, a network MSS, or any other information that can be captured through analysis of the packets of the traffic flows.” [Para 0060-0061, 0064 and claim 7] also describe modifying header fields and classifier trainer/updater 418 (i.e. adjustment unit).)
Anderson does not explicitly disclose: adjust values stored in the plurality of fields in the second input data.
However, Keller discloses in the same field of endeavor: an adjustment unit configured to adjust values stored in the plurality of fields in the second input data. ([Col 1 lines 58-66, Col 6 lines 37-56, and Col 11 lines 24-31] describes a modification value for changing a field of a network packet. Examiner interprets the network packet processor as an adjustment unit. [Col 14 lines 13-30 and Fig 8] also describes setting a default or random value for a field of a network packet (i.e. adjusting values).)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the invention to implement the function of a network packet processor disclosed by Keller into the method of Synthetic Traffic generator disclosed by Anderson to adjust values of fields. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would be motivated to utilize the feature of a network packet processor disclosed by Keller as all the references are in the field of network packets. A person of ordinary skill of the art would have been motivated to perform the combination for being able to manipulate the contents of network packets, and output another stream of modified network packets.
Anderson in view of Keller does not explicitly disclose: based on an adjustment method indicating rules for each of the plurality of fields.
However, Olderdissen discloses in the same field of endeavor: adjust values stored in the plurality of fields in the second input data ([Para 0063-0067 and Fig 3-4] describes a packet generator composing a packet by calculating the content and filling one or more UDFs.), based on an adjustment method indicating rules for each of the plurality of fields. ([Para 0063-0067 and Fig 3-4] packet stream description 326 dictates UDF values (i.e. adjustment method). The field specific UDF parameters like data defining changes in each successive packet indicate rules for each field.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the invention to implement the function of a packet generator disclosed by Olderdissen into the method of Anderson in view of Keller to adjust values based on rules. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would be motivated to utilize the feature of packet generator disclosed by Olderdissen as all the references are in the field of network packets. A person of ordinary skill of the art would have been motivated to perform the combination for being able to improve packet stream processing.
Regarding Claim 9
(Claim 9 is a method claim that corresponds to claim 1 and the rest of the limitations are rejected on the same ground)
Regarding Claim 10
Anderson in view of Keller and Olderdissen discloses: A non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing an information processing apparatus to execute an information processing method ([Para 0072 and Fig 2], Anderson discloses the non-transitory storage medium.), the information processing method comprising: (Claim 10 is a non-transitory storage medium claim that corresponds to claim 1 and the rest of the limitations are rejected on the same ground)
Regarding Claim 4
Anderson in view of Keller and Olderdissen discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the first input data is network packet data, and wherein the plurality of fields is a plurality of fields in a packet header in network packet data. ([Para 0038-0040, 0051, 0065, and Fig 4-5], Anderson describes traffic data (i.e. first input data) that includes header fields and packet information.)
Regarding Claim 6
Anderson in view of Keller and Olderdissen discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment unit adjusts a value stored in a field to be referred to in the machine learning, among the values stored in the plurality of fields in the second input data. ([Para 0037, 0047-0049, 0059, 0067-0068, and Fig 4-5], Anderson describes generating synthetic traffic data and modifying fields for use of training a machine learning model.)
Regarding Claim 7
Anderson in view of Keller and Olderdissen discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment unit does not use an inconsistent value in the machine learning, among the values stored in the plurality of fields in the second input data. ([Para 0037, 0047-0054, 0059-0061, 0067-0068, and Fig 4-5] describes generating synthetic traffic data that consistent with target environments and various characteristics for use of training a machine learning model.)
Claim(s) 2-3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Keller Olderdissen and Zhang et al. (US 20250175426 A1, hereinafter "Zhang").
Regarding Claim 2
Anderson in view of Keller and Olderdissen discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment unit adjusts the values stored in the plurality of fields in the second input data,
Anderson in view of Keller and Olderdissen does not explicitly disclose: using a table in which field names of a target and the adjustment method for each of the field names of the target are recorded.
However, Zhang discloses in the same field of endeavor: using a table in which field names of a target and the adjustment method for each of the field names of the target are recorded. ([Para 0025-0027, 0082-0083, 0151-0163, 0197 and Fig 3-5] describes a table and formats for field names and updating fields.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the invention to implement the function of Packet sending disclosed by Zhang into the method of Anderson in view of Keller and Olderdissen to use a table with field names. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would be motivated to utilize the feature of Packet sending disclosed by Zhang as all the references are in the field of network packets. A person of ordinary skill of the art would have been motivated to perform the combination for being able to update fields across a table format of network packets.
Regarding Claim 3
Anderson in view of Keller Olderdissen and Zhang discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the adjustment method is at least one of replacement by a fixed value, replacement by a recalculated value, and replacement by a value calculated with reference to a value stored in a depended-on field. ([Col 1 lines 58-66, Col 6 lines 37-56, and Col 11 lines 24-31], Keller describes a modification value for changing a field of a network packet. [Col 14 lines 13-30 and Fig 8], Keller describes setting a default value for a field of a network packet (i.e. fixed value).)
Regarding Claim 5
Anderson in view of Keller Olderdissen and Zhang discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment unit adjusts the values stored in the plurality of fields in the second input data, using a table in which a field name, a field size, a field position, and a fixed value for replacement in adjustment, of a target, are recorded. ([Para 0025-0027, 0082-0083, 0151-0163, 0197 and Fig 3-5], Zhang describes a format with name, size, position. [Col 14 lines 13-30 and Fig 8], Keller describes setting a default value for a field of a network packet (i.e. fixed value).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Keller Olderdissen and Helmsen et al. (US 20220086174 A1, hereinafter "Helmsen").
Regarding Claim 8
Anderson in view of Keller and Olderdissen discloses: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the generation unit generates the second input data having the plurality of fields, ([Para 0037, 0047-0049, 0059, 0067-0068, and Fig 4-5] describes generating synthetic traffic data that includes header fields for use of training a machine learning model and based on the captured/received traffic data (i.e. first input data). [Para 0048-0049] describes synthetic data process 248, which may include computer executable instructions executed by the processor 220 (i.e. generation unit).)
Anderson in view of Keller and Olderdissen does not explicitly disclose: by use of a data generation algorithm not using machine learning, based on the first input data.
However, Helmsen discloses in the same field of endeavor: by use of a data generation algorithm not using machine learning. ([Para 0049-0056, 0075, 0082, and Fig 1-2] describes deterministic generative rules (i.e. not machine learning) to generate synthetic network traffic data.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the invention to implement the function of Refining models for Synthetic network traffic data disclosed by Helmsen into the method of Anderson in view of Keller and Olderdissen to use non-machine learning generation algorithms. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would be motivated to utilize the feature of Synthetic network traffic data disclosed by Helmsen as all the references are in the field of network packets. A person of ordinary skill of the art would have been motivated to perform the combination for being able to generate network data to train models.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Swabe (US 2022/0345396 A1) describes calculating header values. Cheng (".
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEWODROS E MENGISTU whose telephone number is (571)270-7714. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, ABDULLAH KAWSAR can be reached at (571)270-3169. 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.
/TEWODROS E MENGISTU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights