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 .
DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending examination.
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.
1. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sabet et al. (USPUB 20110058806 ) in view of Way ( USPUB 20090022489) in further view of
Dimitris Uzunidis et al. ( NPL DOC: " Bidirectional single-fiber filterless optical networks: modeling and experimental assessment," 20th January 2021, Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, June 2021, Vol. 13,No.6, Pages C1-C7.).
As per claim 1, Sabet et al. teaches A system comprising at least a first network segment ( FIG. 2A teaches the Cable station A as the network segment with system) , wherein: the system comprises at least a first bidirectional sensing control device (BSCD) situated at a first boundary of the first network segment (System for sensing fiber communication ( such as the fault sensing) /bidirectional sensing taught within Paragraphs [0027-0028- “…FIG. 2A, there is depicted a block diagram of a system 200 configured to provide distributed fault sensing and recovery for an optical communication system, e.g., system 100. The system 200 may include a plurality of cable stations 210a . . . 210m coupled to a data communications network ("DCN") 215. Each cable station 210a . . . 210m may be configured to transmit and receive the health status of optical data signals over,…”) ; the first network segment comprises a network infrastructure ( FIG. 2B shows a network infrastructure ( Controller A ) with optical network infrastructure ( 246a, 240a and 244a) AND furthermore within Paragraphs 0032-0033]) ; a pair of oppositely directed unidirectional optical fibers carry optical transmissions within the network infrastructure ( Paragraphs [0022-0023]- “…The system 100 may therefore be configured to provide bi-directional communication of optical signals between two or more terminals 110, 120, 150, 160. For ease of explanation, the description herein may refer to transmission from one terminal to another. The system 100 may be configured, however, for bi-directional or uni-directional communication between any of the terminals 110, 120, 150, 160….”) ;
Sabet et al. does not explicitly teach the first BSCD comprises a directionally selective optical coupling circuit configured as an interface between a first bidirectional optical fiber cable segment and the fiber pair, such that each fiber of the fiber pair is coupled to the first fiber cable segment for optical propagation in a respective propagation direction; and the coupling circuit blocks counterpropagating light from returning from the network infrastructure to the first cable segment.
However, within analogous art, Way teaches the first BSCD comprises a directionally selective optical coupling circuit configured as an interface between a first bidirectional optical fiber cable segment and the fiber pair ( selective optical fiber directional transmission taught within FIG. 2 AND Paragraphs [0067-0068]- “… wavelength-selective optical coupler 215, such as an optical filter, is coupled at an upstream location from the gate switch 212 and located at near the entrance of the central node 210 in the fiber ring 202 where the light propagates in the clockwise direction. The wavelength-selective optical coupler 215 selects and splits a small portion of the second optical probe signal from the fiber ring 202 to drop as a local probe monitor signal while allowing all optical WDM signals and the majority of the second optical probe signal to pass through….”) ,
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Way within the modified teaching of the System And Method For Distributed Fault Sensing And Recovery mentioned by Sabet et al. because the Optical Ring Networks Having Node-To-Node Optical Communication Channels For Carrying Data Traffic mentioned by Way provides a method and system for implementation of optical failure detection within optical ring network system .
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one in the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the Optical Ring Networks Having Node-To-Node Optical Communication Channels For Carrying Data Traffic mentioned by Way within the modified teaching of the System And Method For Distributed Fault Sensing And Recovery mentioned by Sabet et al. for implementing a system and method for optical failure detection within optical ring network system .
Combination of Sabet et al. and Way does not explicitly teach such that each fiber of the fiber pair is coupled to the first fiber cable segment for optical propagation in a respective propagation direction; and the coupling circuit blocks counterpropagating light from returning from the network infrastructure to the first cable segment.
However, within analogous art, Dimitris Uzunidis et al. teaches such that each fiber of the fiber pair is coupled to the first fiber cable segment for optical propagation in a respective propagation direction( Pages C2-C3- Fig. 2 showing the signal propagation within the network and fiber cable and further taught within Col. 2- “…Signal add/drop is implemented by splitters and couplers while amplification of pass-through channels is performed by erbium-doped fiber amplifiers (EDFAs), safely operating over unidirectional fibers. The filterless node architecture designed for bidirectional inter-node communication over a single fiber is shown in Fig. 2….”) ; and the coupling circuit blocks counterpropagating light from returning from the network infrastructure to the first cable segment ( Counter propagating optical signal within the cable taught within Page C3- Col. 1- “…enabling inter-node counter-propagation has to consider three main constraints. The first constraint refers to the span and component losses (i.e., splitter/coupler and circulators), which have to be compensated through the proper setting of the EDFA amplifier gain. Indeed, the gain value has to be sufficiently high to compensate the losses, but below the threshold leading to lasering effects (i.e., light recirculation) in the potential loop between the two branches of the node. The second constraint refers to the overall optical reach of the horseshoe and in particular to the transmission impairments. Differently with respect to unidirectional transmissions, Rayleigh scattering becomes relevant. Indeed, both the optical signals and the amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) noise introduced by the amplifiers are reflected and propagated in the reverse direction together with the counter-propagating signal….”) .
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Dimitris Uzunidis et al. within the combined modified teaching of the System And Method For Distributed Fault Sensing And Recovery mentioned by Sabet et al. and the Optical Ring Networks Having Node-To-Node Optical Communication Channels For Carrying Data Traffic mentioned by Way because the Bidirectional single-fiber filterless optical networks: modeling and experimental assessment mentioned by Dimitris Uzunidis et al. provides a method and system for implementation of bidirectional fiber communication and allocation of counter propagation of optical signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one in the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the Bidirectional single-fiber filterless optical networks: modeling and experimental assessment mentioned by Dimitris Uzunidis et al. within the combined modified teaching of the System And Method For Distributed Fault Sensing And Recovery mentioned by Sabet et al. and the Optical Ring Networks Having Node-To-Node Optical Communication Channels For Carrying Data Traffic mentioned by Way for implementing a system and method for bidirectional fiber communication and allocation of counter propagation of optical signal.
2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sabet et al. (USPUB 20110058806 ) in view of Way ( USPUB 20090022489) in further view of
Dimitris Uzunidis et al. ( NPL DOC: " Bidirectional single-fiber filterless optical networks: modeling and experimental assessment," 20th January 2021, Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, June 2021, Vol. 13,No.6, Pages C1-C7.) and David Dahan et al.( NPL Doc: "Security threats and protection procedures for optical networks," 7th May 2017, IET Optoelectronics, 2017, Vol 11, Issue 5, Pages 186- 197.).
As per claim 2, Combination of Sabet et al. , Way and Dimitris Uzunidis et al. teach claim 1,
Combination of Sabet et al. , Way and Dimitris Uzunidis et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the directionally selective optical coupling circuit comprises an optical circulator configured to couple downstream light from the first bidirectional fiber cable segment into one of the unidirectional fibers and to couple upstream light from the other of the unidirectional fibers into the first cable segment.
Within analogous art , David Dahan et al. teaches wherein the directionally selective optical coupling circuit comprises an optical circulator configured to couple downstream light from the first bidirectional fiber cable segment into one of the unidirectional fibers (optical circulator for selective directionally coupling taught within FIG.15 and Page 196- Col. 2- “ … reconfigurable network equipment is introduced as a wavelength selective OA (WSOA). This WSOA allows operation in the network at specific network section only at such wavelengths which are allowed in the network or in a specific network section,…” AND Page 196- Col. 1- “…Monitoring ports can be used to insert unwanted attacking signal into the network by using the reflectance properties of the input port of the subsystem (typically an OA or an ROADM). … optical isolators or optical circulators can be used. As shown in Fig. 15, the optical circulator has the ability to reroute the attacking signal into a photo-detector to create an alarm of intrusion to be reported to the network management system….”) and to couple upstream light from the other of the unidirectional fibers into the first cable segment ( Page 187- Fig. 3 AND Col. 2- “…passive coupler or a monitoring port (MP) of a network element such as an OA or an ROADM. MPs are based on unidirectional coupler, meaning that the jamming signal will be inserted in the counter direction of propagation of the service channel to be disturbed. However, the reflectance of the network element input port will cause the reflection of a portion of the jamming signal back into propagation direction of the link traffic [11] as shown in Fig. 3….”) .
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of David Dahan et al. within the combined modified teaching of the System And Method For Distributed Fault Sensing And Recovery mentioned by Sabet et al. and the Optical Ring Networks Having Node-To-Node Optical Communication Channels For Carrying Data Traffic mentioned by Way and the Bidirectional single-fiber filterless optical networks: modeling and experimental assessment mentioned by Dimitris Uzunidis et al. because the Security threats and protection procedures for optical networks mentioned by David Dahan et al.
provides a method and system for implementation of monitoring and protection of optical network system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one in the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the Security threats and protection procedures for optical networks mentioned by David Dahan et al. within the combined modified teaching of the System And Method For Distributed Fault Sensing And Recovery mentioned by Sabet et al. and the Optical Ring Networks Having Node-To-Node Optical Communication Channels For Carrying Data Traffic mentioned by Way and the Bidirectional single-fiber filterless optical networks: modeling and experimental assessment mentioned by Dimitris Uzunidis et al. for implementing a system and method for monitoring and protection of optical network system.
3. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sabet et al. (USPUB 20110058806 ) in view of Dimitris Uzunidis et al. ( NPL DOC: " Bidirectional single-fiber filterless optical networks: modeling and experimental assessment," 20th January 2021, Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, June 2021, Vol. 13,No.6, Pages C1-C7.).
As per claim 11, Sabet et al. teaches A method for controlling fiber sensing in a network segment ( FIG. 2A teaches the Cable station A as the network segment with system) that includes a network infrastructure that sends and receives transmissions on a bidirectional optical fiber cable segment, comprising: at a boundary of the network segment (System for sensing fiber communication ( such as the fault sensing) /bidirectional sensing taught within Paragraphs [0027-0028- “…FIG. 2A, there is depicted a block diagram of a system 200 configured to provide distributed fault sensing and recovery for an optical communication system, e.g., system 100. The system 200 may include a plurality of cable stations 210a . . . 210m coupled to a data communications network ("DCN") 215. Each cable station 210a . . . 210m may be configured to transmit and receive the health status of optical data signals over,…”) , coupling optical transmissions between the bidirectional optical fiber cable segment and a pair of oppositely directed unidirectional optical fibers that carry optical transmissions within the network infrastructure ( Paragraphs [0022-0023]- “…The system 100 may therefore be configured to provide bi-directional communication of optical signals between two or more terminals 110, 120, 150, 160. For ease of explanation, the description herein may refer to transmission from one terminal to another. The system 100 may be configured, however, for bi-directional or uni-directional communication between any of the terminals 110, 120, 150, 160….”) ,
Sabet et al. does not explicitly teach wherein: the coupling is performed such that each fiber of the fiber pair is coupled to the first fiber cable segment for optical propagation in a respective propagation direction; and the coupling is performed such that counterpropagating light is blocked from returning from the network infrastructure to the first fiber cable segment.
However, within analogous art, Dimitris Uzunidis et al. teaches wherein: the coupling is performed such that each fiber of the fiber pair is coupled to the first fiber cable segment for optical propagation in a respective propagation direction ( Pages C2-C3- Fig. 2 showing the signal propagation within the network and fiber cable and further taught within Col. 2- “…Signal add/drop is implemented by splitters and couplers while amplification of pass-through channels is performed by erbium-doped fiber amplifiers (EDFAs), safely operating over unidirectional fibers. The filterless node architecture designed for bidirectional inter-node communication over a single fiber is shown in Fig. 2….”) ; and the coupling is performed such that counterpropagating light is blocked from returning from the network infrastructure to the first fiber cable segment ( Counter propagating optical signal within the cable taught within Page C3- Col. 1- “…enabling inter-node counter-propagation has to consider three main constraints. The first constraint refers to the span and component losses (i.e., splitter/coupler and circulators), which have to be compensated through the proper setting of the EDFA amplifier gain. Indeed, the gain value has to be sufficiently high to compensate the losses, but below the threshold leading to lasering effects (i.e., light recirculation) in the potential loop between the two branches of the node. The second constraint refers to the overall optical reach of the horseshoe and in particular to the transmission impairments. Differently with respect to unidirectional transmissions, Rayleigh scattering becomes relevant. Indeed, both the optical signals and the amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) noise introduced by the amplifiers are reflected and propagated in the reverse direction together with the counter-propagating signal….”) .
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Dimitris Uzunidis et al. within the modified teaching of the System And Method For Distributed Fault Sensing And Recovery mentioned by Sabet et al. because the Bidirectional single-fiber filterless optical networks: modeling and experimental assessment mentioned by Dimitris Uzunidis et al. provides a method and system for implementation of bidirectional fiber communication and allocation of counter propagation of optical signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one in the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the Bidirectional single-fiber filterless optical networks: modeling and experimental assessment mentioned by Dimitris Uzunidis et al. within the modified teaching of the System And Method For Distributed Fault Sensing And Recovery mentioned by Sabet et al. for implementing a system and method for bidirectional fiber communication and allocation of counter propagation of optical signal.
4. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sabet et al. (USPUB 20110058806 ) in view of Dimitris Uzunidis et al. ( NPL DOC: " Bidirectional single-fiber filterless optical networks: modeling and experimental assessment," 20th January 2021, Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, June 2021, Vol. 13,No.6, Pages C1-C7.) in further view of Aoki et al. ( USPUB 20040008404).
As per claim 12, Combination Sabet et al. and Dimitris Uzunidis et al. teaches claim 11,
Combination Sabet et al. and Dimitris Uzunidis et al. does not explicitly teach further comprising controllably opening and closing an optical bypass path that , when open, allows counterpropagating light to return from the network infrastructure to the first fiber cable segment.
Within analogous art, Aoki et al. teaches further comprising controllably opening and closing an optical bypass path that ( Switching between the open and close for bypassing path taught within FIG. 4B-4C ( 350) and Paragraphs [0083-0084]- “ … amplification module 318 comprises selective bypass module 348. Selective bypass module 348 of FIG. 4C comprises a switch 350 selectively operable to either pass or terminate pump power carried on bypass element 352. The switches 350 allow for module 348 to act as a bypass module in a similar fashion as with modules 344 of FIG. 4B,…”) , when open, allows counterpropagating light to return from the network infrastructure to the first fiber cable segment ( counter clockwise direction taught within FIG. 4E-4F and Paragraphs [0088-0089]- “…Reflector 374 may allow for recycling of pump power in a counter-rotational direction as that transmitted by pump 372. Pump/reflection module 370 may be used in place of pump module 336 of FIG. 4A in certain embodiments….”) .
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Aoki et al. within the combined modified teaching of the System And Method For Distributed Fault Sensing And Recovery mentioned by Sabet et al. and the Bidirectional single-fiber filterless optical networks: modeling and experimental assessment mentioned by Dimitris Uzunidis et al. because the Distributed Raman amplifier For Optical Network And Method mentioned by Aoki et al. provides a method and system for implementation of optical traffic transmission between optical nodes within the optical communication network .
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one in the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the Distributed Raman amplifier For Optical Network And Method mentioned by Aoki et al. within the combined modified teaching of the System And Method For Distributed Fault Sensing And Recovery mentioned by Sabet et al. and the Bidirectional single-fiber filterless optical networks: modeling and experimental assessment mentioned by Dimitris Uzunidis et al. for implementing a system and method for optical traffic transmission between optical nodes within the optical communication network .
As per claim 13, Combination Sabet et al. and Dimitris Uzunidis et al. and Aoki et al. teaches claim 12,
Combination Sabet et al. and Dimitris Uzunidis et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the controllably opening and closing an optical bypass path is performed in response to a command signal transmitted from a control unit.
Within analogous art, Aoki et al. teaches wherein the controllably opening and closing an optical bypass path is performed in response to a command signal transmitted from a control unit( Paragraph [0096-0097]- “… FIG. 5, each node 206, 208, 210 and 212 includes a ring switch 214 in each transport element 220 and 222 that is controllable to selectively open or close the connected ring 202 or 204 prior to the dropping or adding of traffic by the transport element 220 or 222 in the node. ….”) .
5. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sabet et al. (USPUB 20110058806 ) in view of Dimitris Uzunidis et al. ( NPL DOC: " Bidirectional single-fiber filterless optical networks: modeling and experimental assessment," 20th January 2021, Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, June 2021, Vol. 13,No.6, Pages C1-C7.) in further view of Biem ( USPUB 20140006330).
As per claim 14, Combination Sabet et al. and Dimitris Uzunidis et al. and Aoki et al. teaches claim 12,
Combination Sabet et al. and Dimitris Uzunidis et al. and Aoki et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the controllably opening and closing an optical bypass path is performed in response to detecting an anomalous signal pattern transmitted on the bidirectional optical fiber cable segment.
Within analogous art, Biem teaches wherein the controllably opening and closing an optical bypass path is performed in response to detecting an anomalous signal pattern transmitted on the bidirectional optical fiber cable segment ( Paragraph [0025]- “… FIG. 2, the seasonal adjustment module 220 is depicted. The seasonal adjustment module 220 assists in anomaly detection when seasonal data patterns affect the data in the time series, when compared to a time series received at a different time. … seasonal factors do not affect data, this module is excluded and/or bypassed.”) .
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Biem within the combined modified teaching of the System And Method For Distributed Fault Sensing And Recovery mentioned by Sabet et al. and the Bidirectional single-fiber filterless optical networks: modeling and experimental assessment mentioned by Dimitris Uzunidis et al. and the Distributed Raman amplifier For Optical Network And Method mentioned by Aoki et al.
because the Detecting anomalies in real-time in multiple time series data with automated thresholding mentioned by Biem provides a method and system for implementation of anomalies within optical communication system .
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one in the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the Detecting anomalies in real-time in multiple time series data with automated thresholding mentioned by Biem within the combined modified teaching of the System And Method For Distributed Fault Sensing And Recovery mentioned by Sabet et al. and the Bidirectional single-fiber filterless optical networks: modeling and experimental assessment mentioned by Dimitris Uzunidis et al. and the Distributed Raman amplifier For Optical Network And Method mentioned by Aoki et al.
for implementing a system and method for anomalies within optical communication system .
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
7. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for objecting the claims as allowable subject matter:
As to claim 3, prior art of record does not teach or suggest the limitation mentioned within claim 3: “…the directionally selective optical coupling circuit comprises an optical circulator configured to couple downstream light from the first fiber cable segment into one of the unidirectional fibers and to couple upstream light from the other of the unidirectional fibers into the first fiber cable segment; and the directionally selective optical coupling circuit further comprises an optical isolator configured to block counterpropagating light from returning from the network infrastructure to the first fiber cable segment.”
As to claim 4, prior art of record does not teach or suggest the limitation mentioned within claim 4: “…one of the unidirectional fibers is a downstream fiber for light propagating from the first fiber cable segment to the network infrastructure; the first BSCD further comprises a bypass path for counterpropagating light going from the downstream fiber to the first fiber cable segment; and the bypass path includes an optical gate to controllably allow and disallow entry of the counterpropagating light to the first fiber cable segment.”
As to claim 5, The following claims depend objected allowable claim 4, therefore the following claims are considered objected allowable claims over prior art of record.
As to claim 6, The following claims depend objected allowable claim 5, therefore the following claims are considered objected allowable claims over prior art of record.
As to claim 7, The following claims depend objected allowable claim 6, therefore the following claims are considered objected allowable claims over prior art of record.
As to claim 8, prior art of record does not teach or suggest the limitation mentioned within claim 8: “…two or more BSCDs, each of which is situated at a boundary of the first network segment; each of the two or more BSCDs comprises a directionally selective optical coupling circuit configured as an interface between a respective bidirectional optical fiber cable segment and a respective pair of unidirectional optical fibers, such that each fiber of the respective fiber pair is coupled to the respective bidirectional optical fiber cable segment for optical propagation in a respective propagation direction; the directionally selective optical coupling circuit of each of the two or more BSCDs is configured with an optical gate to controllably block counterpropagating light from returning from the network infrastructure to the respective cable segment connected to the BSCD; and each of the two or more BSCDs further comprises a control circuit for causing the optical gate to open or close.”
As to claim 9, The following claims depend objected allowable claim 8, therefore the following claims are considered objected allowable claims over prior art of record.
As to claim 10, The following claims depend objected allowable claim 9, therefore the following claims are considered objected allowable claims over prior art of record.
.
As to claim 15, prior art of record does not teach or suggest the limitation mentioned within claim 15: “…the controllably opening and closing an optical bypass path is performed in response to detecting a prespecified signal pattern transmitted from an authorized fiber sensing device on the bidirectional optical fiber cable segment.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of Reference Cited for a listing of analogous art.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-9799 and Fax # is (571)273-9799. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, David C. Payne can be reached on (571) 272-3024. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)? If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR S ISMAIL/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635