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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because FIG. 1, at 101 "divid" should read "divide” and expression after “based . . .” completed for clarity and to align with description at ¶0030 and claims.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶0012, “divid” should read - - -divide - - for record clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13-17, and 19 contain additional character/bullet symbol usage (hyphens), which examiner objects to as an improper claim form. Vertical/indented lists with indented sub-lines and semicolons separating the elements function visually like a bullet without breaking the single sentence rule (for form of claims, see MPEP §608.01)
Claim 1 (line 9), Claim 11(line 11), the acronym “CH” should read - cluster head (CH) - - or applicant’s applicable meaning at its first mention.
Claim 6 (line 2), Claim 16 (line 2), “and so on” is an idiomatic expression/ idiomatic language.
Claim 8 (line 1), Claim 18 (line 2), “the constraints” should read - - the set of constraints - -.
Claim 10 (line 2), “that link” should read - -the link with adjacent nodes - - (as drafted in Claim 20) for clarity.
Claim 11 (line 5), Claim 15 (line 1), “divid” should read - - divide - - for clarity.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are objected to by virtue of their dependency (directly or indirectly) on Claims 1 and 11 respectively.
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations "the CH nodes” and “the assigned CH node”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 2-9 and 12-19 are rejected by virtue of their dependency (directly or indirectly) on Claims 1 and 11 respectively.
Regarding Claims 4 (line 3) and 14 (line 3), the use of "and/or" in unclear/ambiguous. For examination purposes, examiner interprets "and/or" as - - or - -.
Regarding Claim 7 and Claim 17, several of the limitations cited after “comprising a plurality of: “ are not written in plural form and lack antecedent basis (e.g. “geographic zone of the served nodes”).
Further, regarding Claim 7 (lines 13-14) and Claim 17 (line 12-13), the limitation “wherein various ones of the network nodes can belong to a given cluster when sharing similar cost functions” is unclear/ambiguous.
Claims 10 (line 3) and 20 (line 3) recite the conditional limitation "if." The use of the conditional term "if" introduces ambiguity regarding the boundaries of the claimed invention. It creates a choice between alternative steps or structural configurations without clearly defining which path is required for infringement. Under MPEP 2111.04, conditional limitations are treated as "contingent limitations." Therefore, Claims 10 and 20 are indefinite.
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.
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, 7-8, 11-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20150200859 A1), hereinafter Li, in view of LUCAS et al. (US 20230362056 A1), hereinafter LUCAS.
Regarding Claim 1, Li teaches a method for deploying resources in a network (¶Li, Abstract; ¶0005, method of network zoning and traffic engineering), the network comprising a plurality of network nodes composed of served nodes and serving nodes, the serving nodes comprising a plurality of cluster heads (FIG. 1, ¶0027; ¶¶0031-0032 and cited in apparatus claim 11 herein), the method comprising:
dividing a served geographic zone into a plurality of […] horizontal clusters based on a multi-dimensional vector of different features including: number of the served nodes; position values of the served nodes; and traffic flow type values for the served nodes (Li, ¶0022, the wireless network can be dynamically divided into geographic zones; FIG. 4, ¶0054 at 430, plurality of network nodes are partitioned into K zones [and] partitioning is carried out according to a heuristic method…including clustering; ¶0022, geographic zones, [that are] formed according to regional considerations/”different features”, such as locations of UEs, radio nodes, and routers and densitites . . .[or] FIG. 4, ¶0052 at 420, according to at least one zone quantity parameter (an expected zone TE complexity, network size, traffic load, and flow information) / “different features” (ie network state factors); see also ¶0031; see also a zone could be defined with a single SDN controller that serves all network elements within 10 miles. Alternatively, logical network zones are formed according to network traffic flows);
assigning one of the CH nodes to each of the plurality of […] horizontal clusters considering: capacity of the assigned CH node; and deployment delay of the assigned CH node (Li,.¶0025, a network can be configured to assign one SDN controller per zone; FIG. 4, ¶0054, at 440, the controllers/K controllers are assigned to respective zones; ¶0024,[a] component of expected zone TE complexity is the processing capacity of a particular SDN controller; ¶0026 other measurements of distance can be used, including Euclidean distance, communication delay/”deployment delay”, and others that will be apparent to those skilled in the art); and
assigning one of the serving nodes to the each of the plurality of […] horizontal clusters considering: capacity of the assigned serving node; required capacity to serve a particular one of the plurality of […] clusters; and a distance constraint between two or more of the served nodes (Li, ¶0026, [z]one controllers are selected with a goal of maximizing the minimum inter-controller distance; ¶0027, [t]he zoning process creates |S| zones by coupling subsets of data plane nodes to the controller nodes; ¶0031, [c]lustering associates each node to a closest controller based on hop distance or a given distance measure) to avoid wireless-interference (see MPEP 2111.04, steps not required).
Li discloses a plurality of horizontal clusters, as cited herein.
Yet, Li does not explicitly teach multidimensional clusters.
However, in analogous art, LUCAS discloses multidimensional clusters (LUCAS, FIGS. 59; FIG. 60; ¶0332, dynamically adapt to changing conditions and optimize resource allocation by intelligently clustering nodes; ¶0341, at 6002 FIG. 61, generating an N-dimensional correlation for edge nodes and end devices across multiple dimensions,[and] ¶0343, at 6102 generating an N-dimensional correlation for edge nodes and end devices across multiple dimensions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s apparatus and method of network zoning combined with LUCAS’s dynamic network node grouping using machine learning/clustering to generate the N-dimensional correlation for edge nodes and end devices. The motivation is to dynamically adjust group configurations or the group memberships in response to changes in conditions [LUCAS, ¶0005, ¶0008].
Regarding Claim 2, Li and LUCAS teach claim 1.
Li further teaches each of the plurality of multidimensional horizontal clusters is further divided in subzones (Li, FIG. 4, at 430, the plurality of network nodes are partitioned into K zones / “subzones”).
Regarding Claim 7, Li and LUCAS teach claim 1.
Li further teaches self-tuning deployment of resources in the network by: proactively executing a cost-optimization function (Li, ¶0022, the wireless network can be periodically re-zoned, by a zoning controller, and re-optimized, by the master zone controller, as traffic fluctuates and users migrate from one zone to another /”self-tuning”; FIG. 4, ¶0054, The aim of the partitioning is to minimize overhead cost in the TE optimization process; FIG. 10, ¶0064, [z]ones 1040 are formed such that overhead cost is minimized ) considering a set of constraints comprising a plurality of: geographic zone of the served nodes (¶0022, [g]eographic zones are formed according to regional considerations such as locations/”positions” of UEs, radio nodes, and routers, ); position of the network nodes (¶0022, locations/”positions” as cited herein; ¶0031 heuristic approaches (clustering) use physical topology information to form the geographic zones.); -mobility capabilities of the network nodes; energy capabilities of network nodes; resource requirements of the network nodes; type of the network nodes; type of the served traffic flow (¶0022, logical network zones are formed according to network traffic flows ¶0037 as cited herein); and instantaneous bandwidth (IBW); and wherein various ones of the network nodes can belong to a given cluster when sharing similar cost functions (Li, FIG. 4, ¶0054. the plurality of network nodes are partitioned into K zones; ¶0035 task-assignment, the zoning problem is structured such that each node is a task assigned to a unique controller to minimize total cos; ¶0036 for each node i in each frontier F.sub.s, a cost increase, .DELTA.(i,s), is computed for each bordering zone; FIG. 10, ¶0064, [z]ones 1040 are formed such that overhead cost is minimized.).
Regarding Claim 8, Li and LUCAS teach claim 7.
Li further teaches tuning a subset of the constraints (Li, ¶0022 wireless networks can be dynamically divided into zones to improve performance; ¶0027 optimization can be solved iteratively [where] [i]n each iteration, the zone sub-problems are solved to obtain resource allocations for the zones according to collected network status information for the zone and the overhead costs of using border links/ “subsets of the constraints”) for optimizing stability, security, safety and radio network performance in the network (see MPEP 2111.04, steps not required).
Regarding Claims 11-12 and 17-18, the claims disclose similar features of Claims 1-2 and 7-8 respectively, and are rejected based on the same rationales of Claims 1-2 and 7-8, in apparatus form (a system comprising a plurality of network nodes (Li Abstract; FIG. 1, ¶0048, a zoned network 100 ; multiple network nodes 140 are distributed throughout) composed of served nodes and serving nodes (Li, ¶0027, for a network of N nodes/”serving nodes”, [and] . . .[a] subset, S, of the nodes are configured to serve as controllers; creates |S| zones by coupling subsets of data plane nodes to the controller node; i.e. data-plane nodes/”served nodes” and controller nodes/”serving nodes”; ), the serving nodes comprising a plurality of cluster heads (Li, ¶0031, [c]lustering associates each node to a closest controller [and] ¶0032 [w]ith clustering, each controller initially forms a zone ; see also FIG. 4, at 440 assigned K SDN controller/”cluster head” to K Zones); and one or more processors (Li, FIG. 5, CPU 514, ¶0055, processing unit 502 and processing units disclosed)).
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of LUCAS as cited above, and further in view of Shattil (US 20170235316 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Li and LUCAS teach claim 2.
Li and LUCAS do not explicitly teach automatically triggering repositioning of one or more serving nodes in the network considering dynamic thresholds.
However, in analogous art, Shattil discloses automatically triggering repositioning of one or more serving nodes in the network considering dynamic thresholds (Shattil, ¶0079, [u]pdating the navigation criteria 410 may result in step 402 triggering the flight controller 202 to adapt the flight path 403, since the navigation criteria 410 can be implemented as the rule base for autonomous navigation control/; [t]he directives 501-506 may comprise navigation criteria based on . . . a threshold value or a range of permissible values [and] a navigation directive, can have its threshold or range adapted by a RAN directive).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s apparatus and method of network zoning combined and LUCAS’s dynamic network node grouping/clustering with Shattil’s node positioning. The motivation would be to ensure reliable network connectivity [Shattil, ¶0009].
Regarding Claim 4, Li, LUCAS and Shattil teach claim 3.
Li and LUCAS do not explicitly teach the dynamic thresholds are related to one or more of:- remaining execution time in terms of network resources, computational resources and/or storage resources; - energy/power requirements; - deployment/execution delay of one or more serving nodes; - predicted time of the environment condition changes; and - remaining time for displacing the one or more serving node to the center of a target subzone.
However, in the analagous art, Shattil discloses the dynamic thresholds are related to one or more of: . . . - energy/power requirements (Shattil, ¶0093, energy-efficient mobility, for which the movement of the UAVs should be carefully controlled by taking into account the energy consumption associated with every maneuver [and] can provide a basis for adapting either or both the navigation criteria and the navigation criteria boundaries)- remaining execution time in terms of network resources, computational resources and/or storage resources; - deployment/execution delay of one or more serving nodes; - predicted time of the environment condition changes; and - remaining time for displacing the one or more serving node to the center of a target subzone.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s apparatus and method of network zoning combined and LUCAS’s dynamic network node grouping/clustering with Shattil’s node positioning. The motivation would be to ensure reliable network connectivity [Shattil, ¶0009].
Regarding 13 and 14, the claims disclose similar features of Claims 3 and 4 respectively, and are rejected based on the same rationales of Claims 3 and 4, in apparatus form.
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of LUCAS as cited above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20190097890 A1), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding Claim 5, Li and LUCAS teach claim 1.
Li further teaches dividing each of the plurality of horizontal multidimensional clusters (HMC) into a plurality of sub-clusters (sub-HMC clusters) (Li, FIG. 4, ¶0052-¶0054, plurality of network nodes partitioned into K Zones; see also FIG. 7-9 ¶0061-0063 geographic zones);
Li further teaches assigning a subset of the network nodes assigning a subset of the network nodes to each of the plurality of sub-clusters (¶0027, ; see also FIG. 1, ¶0049; FIG. 7 ¶0061 subsets of network nodes in zones “plurality of sub-clusters”).
Li and LUCAS do not explicitly teach [assigning a subset of the network nodes to each of the plurality of sub-clusters] thereby defining vertical multidimensional clusters (VMC) of network node.
However, in the analogous art Zhang discloses assigning a subset of the network nodes to each of the plurality of sub-clusters thereby defining vertical multidimensional clusters (VMC) of network node (Zhang, ¶0016 each node cluster includes a subset of nodes of the plurality; the subset of nodes for each node cluster includes at least one parent node and a corresponding group of child nodes/ “VMCs”; ¶0018 creating the plurality of node clusters based on assigning each child node corresponding to a parent node to the same node cluster as the parent node; see also FIG. 9, steps 404-41
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s apparatus and method of network zoning combined and LUCAS’s dynamic network node grouping/clustering with Zhang’s control plane management based on physical topology of nodes. The motivation would be to minimize traffic between node clusters. [Zhang, Abstract; ¶0087].
Regarding Claim 6, Li and LUCAS teach claim 5.
Li discloses a hierarchy of clusters of network nodes (Li, FIG. 7; FIG. 10, ¶0064, a master controller 1010 and slave controller groups/ ”clusters” and each of the slave controllers 1020 is assigned to a Zone).
Li and LUCAS do not explicitly teach dividing each of the sub-HMC clusters into sub- sub-HMC clusters and so on thereby creating a hierarchy of clusters of network nodes.
However, in the analogous art Zhang discloses dividing each of the sub-HMC clusters into sub- sub-HMC clusters and so on thereby creating a hierarchy of clusters of network nodes (Zhang, ¶0047, the disclosed technology includes a network model that models the nodes in a network as a tree. In a tree topology, a subset of connected nodes is modeled as a branch of a tree which has no edges to connect the subset of nodes to the nodes of other branches of the tree; see also FIG. 11, FIG. 12, ¶0114-¶0115 method and topology).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s apparatus and method of network zoning combined and LUCAS’s dynamic network node grouping/clustering with Zhang’s control plane management based on physical topology of nodes. The motivation would be to minimize traffic between node clusters. [Zhang, Abstract; ¶0087].
Regarding 15 and 16, the claims disclose similar features of Claims 5 and 6 respectively and are rejected based on the same rationales of Claims 5 and 6, in apparatus form.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of LUCAS as cited above, and further in view of Mintz (US 20220319312 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Li and LUCAS teach claim 1.
Li further teaches determining traffic routes in the network by iterating (Li, ¶0027 distributed optimization can be solved iteratively) : at each of the network nodes, (Li, ¶0027, in each iteration, the zone sub-problems are solved to obtain resource allocations for the zones according to collected network status information for the zone and the overhead costs of using border links. Resource allocations for border links can be coordinated by a master SDN controller that solves the master TE [traffic engineering] problem) ; [and] maintaining a list of adjacent network nodes (Li, ¶0030, [e]ach node reports information about itself and its incidental links to its controller. The reporting takes place in individual zones and the total bits transmitted is counted as collection overhead).
Li and LUCAS do not explicitly teach at each node, broadcasting a state vector containing link costs with adjacent network nodes; at each node, creating a matrix of link costs between all pairs of the network nodes; based on this matrix, each of the serving nodes computing a shortest path to a core network; and assigning active ones of the served nodes to proper ones of the serving nodes considering the computed shortest paths; until a converging solution is found.
However, in the analogous art, Mintz discloses determining traffic routes in the network by iterating . . . broadcasting a state vector containing link costs with adjacent network nodes (Mintz ¶0948, DPCP is the prime choice to be used iteratively for planning and coordination of paths; ¶0954 each link is associated with a plurality of travel time costs to arrive to other links on the network e.g., stored as a vector per link; ¶0953) at each node, creating a matrix of link costs between all pairs of the network nodes (Mintz, ¶0953, determination of said link to link time related travel time costs, [and] ¶0954 each link is associated with a plurality of travel time costs to arrive to other links on the network e.g., stored as a vector per link preferably with respect to link to link time related travel time costs that are bounded by zone to zone boundaries); based on this matrix, each of the serving nodes computing a shortest path to a core network (Mintz ¶0955, determination of such time related link to link travel times is applied by an OLTLBP post process after determination of said link to link shortest paths); and assigning active ones of the served nodes to proper ones of the serving nodes considering the computed shortest paths; until a converging solution is found (Mintz,¶0473, Load balancing applying coordination control processes by load balancing control processes,[and] aimed to converge towards substantial load balance on the network; ¶0970, the effectiveness of the proactive DPCP is reduced due to said lack of ability to maintain effectively the coordination of paths (detected e.g., by slow traffic imbalance mitigation convergence; see also ¶0475, control processes are applying in this respect load balancing which uses with each iteration planning (e.g., said re-planning phases) of paths according to feedback from a C-DTS that was fed by prior planned (re-planned) paths that were limited by the prior iteration to apply a moderated change to the developed traffic on the network) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s apparatus and method of network zoning combined and LUCAS’s dynamic network node grouping/clustering with Mintz’s system and method for predictive traffic load balancing. The motivation would be to minimize the negative effects of non-coordinated trips on the network. [Mintz, ¶0246].
Regarding Claim 19, the claim discloses similar features of Claim 9 and is rejected based on the same rationales of Claims 9 in apparatus form.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of LUCAS and Mintz, as cited above, and further in view of Celozzi et al. (US 20190238454 A1), hereinafter Celozzi.
Regarding Claim 10, Li, LUCAS and Mintz teach claim 9.
Li further teaches computing costs and Li, LUCAS and Mintz disclose with capability to compute a product.
Yet, Li, LUCAS and Mintz do not explicitly teach at each node, computing the costs of the link with adjacent nodes as a product of a network function and the feasibility of that link considering that a link is feasible if all constraints are met, a constraint is defined for each metric, a cost of an infeasible link is infinite.
However, in the analogous art, Celozzi discloses at each node, computing the costs of the link with adjacent nodes as a product of a network function and the feasibility of that link considering that a link is feasible if all constraints are met, a constraint is defined for each metric, a cost of an infeasible link is infinite (Celozzi, ¶0013, provision of the SDN Datapath in accordance with the received performance metrics may be accomplished using a cost based algorithm, and populating the candidate set with those resources having a geographic location attribute satisfying the received geographic constraint may comprise applying an infinite cost to those resources having a geographic location attribute which does not satisfy the received geographic constraint; ¶0059, allocate the resource to the SD if the geographic location attribute and the level of confidentiality attributes satisfy the entry requirements. see also §112 rejection above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s apparatus and method of network zoning combined and LUCAS’s dynamic network node grouping/clustering and Mintz’s system and method for predictive traffic load balancing with Celozzi’s to apparatus and to a datapath driven provision computer program product. The motivation would be to carry out a cost-based algorithm in an SDN. [Celozzi, ¶0013].
Regarding Claim 20, the claim discloses similar features of Claim 10 and is rejected based on the same rationales of Claims 10, in apparatus form.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chiang et al. (US 20150133129 A1): Abstract; ¶0041-0044; allocating frequencies in a radio access network (RAN) that includes a plurality of radio nodes each associated with a cell and a services node operatively coupled to the radio nodes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is 571-270-7694. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at 571-270-0422. 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.
/TRACY L WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
