DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 25 November 2025.
Claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 were amended.
Claims 3, 9, and 16 were cancelled.
Claims 22 and 23 were added.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-15, and 17-23 are pending in this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
The objection to claim 9 regarding the claim not ending with a period is moot due to cancellation of the aforementioned claim.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-15, and 17-21 and new claims 22 and 23 filed on 25 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are deemed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 15 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polacek (U.S. 10,089,309) and further in view of Yang (U.S. 2024/0027996).
With respect to claim 1, Polacek teaches a system for load-balancing, the system comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to: identify one or more computational tasks (Polacek, Fig. 10, element 420; col. 11, lines 53-61); identify a plurality of candidate servers in a load-balancing server pool (Polacek, Fig. 4, elements 312, 314, 316, and 318; col. 7, lines 7-11); identify one or more servers (Polacek, col. 8, lines 8-12) by selectively pruning (Polacek, col. 7, lines 36-39 and col. 8, lines 19-21 and 24-26) the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 5, elements 322, 324, 326, 328; col. 7, lines 43-44) based on one or more computational task completion failures occurring within a length of time before the selective pruning of the plurality of candidate servers, wherein the one or more computational task completion failures are associated with one or more candidate servers of the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, col. 7, lines 55-56); identify the one or more servers (Polacek, col. 8, lines 8-12) by selectively pruning (Polacek, col. 7, lines 36-39 and col. 8, lines 19-21 and 24-26) the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 5, elements 322, 324, 326, 328; col. 7, lines 43-44) based further on computational task counts associated with respective candidate servers of the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, col. 10, lines 58-59); and assign the one or more computational tasks to the one or more servers (Polacek, col. 7, line 60 – col. 8, lines 2 and 8-10).
Polacek does not explicitly teach failures occurring within a particular number of minutes.
However, Yang teaches failures occurring within a particular number of minutes (Yang, page 14, paragraph 160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polacek in view of Yang in order to enable failures occurring within a particular number of minutes. One would be motivated to do so in order to track a number of consecutive failed jobs of the device; and automatically taking the device offline based on the number of consecutive failed jobs, wherein no further job is automatically assigned to the device by the administration server when the device is offline (Yang, page 2, paragraph 11).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Polacek and Yang teaches the invention described in claim 1, including the system wherein the one or more processors, to identify the one or more servers, are configured to: identify the one or more servers (Polacek, col. 8, lines 8-12) by selectively pruning (Polacek, col. 7, lines 36-39 and col. 8, lines 19-21 and 24-26) one or more candidate servers, of the respective candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 5, elements 322, 324, 326, 328; col. 7, lines 43-44), associated with nonzero computational task counts (Polacek, col. 8, lines 8-15).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Polacek and Yang teaches the invention described in claim 1, including the system wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: assign at least one computational task to (Polacek, col. 7, line 60 – col. 8, lines 2 and 8-10) a candidate server, of the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 5, elements 322, 324, 326, 328; col. 7, lines 43-44), that is not one of the one or more servers (Polacek, col. 8, lines 13-15).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Polacek and Yang teaches the invention described in claim 1, including the system wherein the one or more computational tasks are generated automatically (Polacek, col. 5, lines 52-54).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Polacek and Yang teaches the invention described in claim 1, including the system wherein the one or more computational tasks are generated based on user input (Polacek, col. 4, lines 43-46).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 15, Polacek teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to: identify one or more computational tasks (Polacek, Fig. 10, element 420; col. 11, lines 53-61); identify a plurality of candidate servers in a load-balancing server pool (Polacek, Fig. 4, elements 312, 314, 316, and 318; col. 7, lines 7-11); identify one or more servers (Polacek, col. 8, lines 8-12) by selectively pruning (Polacek, col. 7, lines 36-39 and col. 8, lines 19-21 and 24-26) the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 5, elements 322, 324, 326, 328; col. 7, lines 43-44) based on computational task counts associated with respective candidate servers of the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, col. 10, lines 58-59); identify the one or more servers (Polacek, col. 8, lines 8-12) by selectively pruning (Polacek, col. 7, lines 36-39 and col. 8, lines 19-21 and 24-26) the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 5, elements 322, 324, 326, 328; col. 7, lines 43-44) based further on one or more computational task completion failures occurring within a length of time before the selective pruning of the plurality of candidate servers, wherein the one or more computational task completion failures are associated with one or more candidate servers of the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, col. 7, lines 55-56); and assign the one or more computational tasks to the one or more servers (Polacek, col. 7, line 60 – col. 8, lines 2 and 8-10).
Polacek does not explicitly teach failures occurring within a particular number of minutes.
However, Yang teaches failures occurring within a particular number of minutes (Yang, page 14, paragraph 160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polacek in view of Yang in order to enable failures occurring within a particular number of minutes. One would be motivated to do so in order to track a number of consecutive failed jobs of the device; and automatically taking the device offline based on the number of consecutive failed jobs, wherein no further job is automatically assigned to the device by the administration server when the device is offline (Yang, page 2, paragraph 11).
With respect to claim 21, the combination of Polacek and Yang teaches the invention described in claim 1, including the system wherein the one or more processors, to identify the one or more servers, are configured to: identify the one or more servers (Polacek, col. 8, lines 8-12) by selectively pruning (Polacek, col. 7, lines 36-39 and col. 8, lines 19-21 and 24-26) one or more candidate servers, of the respective candidate servers , based on the one or more candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 5, elements 322, 324, 326, 328; col. 7, lines 43-44) having at least one currently assigned computational task (Polacek, col. 8, lines 5-6 and 46-50).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claims 18-20 do not teach or define any new limitations above claims 4, 5, and 7 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polacek in view of Yang and further in view of Heim (U.S. 8,826,292).
With respect to claim 2, Polacek teaches the invention described in claim 1, including a system for load-balancing, the system comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to: identify one or more computational tasks (Polacek, Fig. 10, element 420; col. 11, lines 53-61); identify a plurality of candidate servers in a load-balancing server pool (Polacek, Fig. 4, elements 312, 314, 316, and 318; col. 7, lines 7-11); identify one or more servers (Polacek, col. 8, lines 8-12) by selectively pruning (Polacek, col. 7, lines 36-39 and col. 8, lines 19-21 and 24-26) the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 5, elements 322, 324, 326, 328; col. 7, lines 43-44) based on one or more computational task completion failures occurring within a length of time before the selective pruning of the plurality of candidate servers, wherein the one or more computational task completion failures are associated with one or more candidate servers of the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, col. 7, lines 55-56); identify the one or more servers (Polacek, col. 8, lines 8-12) by selectively pruning (Polacek, col. 7, lines 36-39 and col. 8, lines 19-21 and 24-26) the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 5, elements 322, 324, 326, 328; col. 7, lines 43-44) based further on computational task counts associated with respective candidate servers of the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, col. 10, lines 58-59); assign the one or more computational tasks to the one or more servers (Polacek, col. 7, line 60 – col. 8, lines 2 and 8-10); the system wherein the one or more processors, to identify the one or more servers, are configured to: identify the one or more servers (Polacek, col. 8, lines 8-12) by selectively pruning (Polacek, col. 7, lines 36-39 and col. 8, lines 19-21 and 24-26) the plurality of candidate servers based further on (Polacek, Fig. 5, elements 322, 324, 326, 328; col. 7, lines 43-44), and associated with at least one candidate server of the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 4, elements 312, 314, 316, and 318; col. 7, lines 7-11).
Polacek does not explicitly teach failures occurring within a particular number of minutes.
However, Yang teaches failures occurring within a particular number of minutes (Yang, page 14, paragraph 160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polacek in view of Yang in order to enable failures occurring within a particular number of minutes. One would be motivated to do so in order to track a number of consecutive failed jobs of the device; and automatically taking the device offline based on the number of consecutive failed jobs, wherein no further job is automatically assigned to the device by the administration server when the device is offline (Yang, page 2, paragraph 11).
The combination of Polacek and Yang does not explicitly teach at least one average central processing unit (CPU) utilization, over a quantity of CPU cycles satisfying an average CPU utilization threshold.
However, Heim teaches at least one average central processing unit (CPU) utilization, over a quantity of CPU cycles satisfying an average CPU utilization threshold (Heim, col. 3, lines 51-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Polacek and Yang in view of Heim in order to enable at least one average central processing unit (CPU) utilization, over a quantity of CPU cycles satisfying an average CPU utilization threshold. One would be motivated to do so in order to provide for optimized system-wide sharing of resources amongst host machines (Heim, col. 3, lines 63-64).
Claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations above claim 2 and therefore is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polacek in view of Heim and further in view of Yang.
With respect to claim 8, Polacek teaches a method of load-balancing, comprising: identifying one or more computational tasks (Polacek, Fig. 10, element 420; col. 11, lines 53-61); identifying a plurality of candidate servers in a load-balancing server pool (Polacek, Fig. 4, elements 312, 314, 316, and 318; col. 7, lines 7-11); identifying one or more servers (Polacek, col. 8, lines 8-12) by selectively pruning (Polacek, col. 7, lines 36-39 and col. 8, lines 19-21 and 24-26) the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 5, elements 322, 324, 326, 328; col. 7, lines 43-44), associated with at least one candidate server of the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 4, elements 312, 314, 316, and 318; col. 7, lines 7-11); identifying the one or more servers (Polacek, col. 8, lines 8-12) by selectively pruning (Polacek, col. 7, lines 36-39 and col. 8, lines 19-21 and 24-26) the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 5, elements 322, 324, 326, 328; col. 7, lines 43-44) based further on one or more computational task completion failures occurring within a length of time before the selective pruning of the plurality of candidate servers, wherein the one or more computational task completion failures are associated with one or more candidate servers of the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, col. 7, lines 55-56); and assigning the one or more computational tasks to the one or more servers (Polacek, col. 7, line 60 – col. 8, lines 2 and 8-10).
Polacek does not explicitly teach based on at least one average central processing unit (CPU) utilization, over a quantity of CPU cycles satisfying an average CPU utilization threshold.
However, Heim teaches based on at least one average central processing unit (CPU) utilization, over a quantity of CPU cycles satisfying an average CPU utilization threshold (Heim, col. 3, lines 51-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polacek in view of Heim in order to enable based on at least one average central processing unit (CPU) utilization, over a quantity of CPU cycles satisfying an average CPU utilization threshold. One would be motivated to do so in order to provide for optimized system-wide sharing of resources amongst host machines (Heim, col. 3, lines 63-64).
The combination of Polacek and Heim does not explicitly teach failures occurring within a particular number of minutes.
However, Yang teaches failures occurring within a particular number of minutes (Yang, page 14, paragraph 160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Polacek and Heim in view of Yang in order to enable failures occurring within a particular number of minutes. One would be motivated to do so in order to track a number of consecutive failed jobs of the device; and automatically taking the device offline based on the number of consecutive failed jobs, wherein no further job is automatically assigned to the device by the administration server when the device is offline (Yang, page 2, paragraph 11).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Polacek, Heim, and Yang teaches the invention described in claim 8, including the method wherein identifying the one or more servers further includes: identifying the one or more servers (Polacek, col. 8, lines 8-12) by selectively pruning (Polacek, col. 7, lines 36-39 and col. 8, lines 19-21 and 24-26) the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 5, elements 322, 324, 326, 328; col. 7, lines 43-44) based further on computational task counts associated with respective candidate servers of the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, col. 10, lines 58-59).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Polacek, Heim, and Yang teaches the invention described in claim 10, including the method wherein identifying the one or more servers further includes: identifying the one or more servers (Polacek, col. 8, lines 8-12) by selectively pruning (Polacek, col. 7, lines 36-39 and col. 8, lines 19-21 and 24-26) one or more candidate servers, of the respective candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 5, elements 322, 324, 326, 328; col. 7, lines 43-44), associated with nonzero computational task counts (Polacek, col. 8, lines 8-15).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Polacek, Heim, and Yang teaches the invention described in claim 8, including the method further comprising: assigning at least one computational task to (Polacek, col. 7, line 60 – col. 8, lines 2 and 8-10) a candidate server, of the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 5, elements 322, 324, 326, 328; col. 7, lines 43-44), that is not one of the one or more servers (Polacek, col. 8, lines 13-15).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Polacek, Heim, and Yang teaches the invention described in claim 8, including the method wherein the one or more computational tasks are generated automatically (Polacek, col. 5, lines 52-54).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Polacek, Heim, and Yang teaches the invention described in claim 8, including the method wherein the one or more computational tasks are generated based on user input (Polacek, col. 4, lines 43-46).
The combination of references is made under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polacek in view of Heim in view of Yang and further in view of Soryal et al. (U.S. 12,028,374).
With respect to claim 22, Polacek teaches the invention described in claim 8, including a method of load-balancing, comprising: identifying one or more computational tasks (Polacek, Fig. 10, element 420; col. 11, lines 53-61); identifying a plurality of candidate servers in a load-balancing server pool (Polacek, Fig. 4, elements 312, 314, 316, and 318; col. 7, lines 7-11); identifying one or more servers (Polacek, col. 8, lines 8-12) by selectively pruning (Polacek, col. 7, lines 36-39 and col. 8, lines 19-21 and 24-26) the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 5, elements 322, 324, 326, 328; col. 7, lines 43-44), associated with at least one candidate server of the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 4, elements 312, 314, 316, and 318; col. 7, lines 7-11); identifying the one or more servers (Polacek, col. 8, lines 8-12) by selectively pruning (Polacek, col. 7, lines 36-39 and col. 8, lines 19-21 and 24-26) the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 5, elements 322, 324, 326, 328; col. 7, lines 43-44) based further on one or more computational task completion failures occurring within a length of time before the selective pruning of the plurality of candidate servers, wherein the one or more computational task completion failures are associated with one or more candidate servers of the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, col. 7, lines 55-56); and assigning the one or more computational tasks to the one or more servers (Polacek, col. 7, line 60 – col. 8, lines 2 and 8-10); and the method further comprising: removing candidate servers (Polacek, col. 7, lines 36-39 and col. 8, lines 19-21 and 24-26), from the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 5, elements 322, 324, 326, 328; col. 7, lines 43-44).
Polacek does not explicitly teach based on at least one average central processing unit (CPU) utilization, over a quantity of CPU cycles satisfying an average CPU utilization threshold.
However, Heim teaches based on at least one average central processing unit (CPU) utilization, over a quantity of CPU cycles satisfying an average CPU utilization threshold (Heim, col. 3, lines 51-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polacek in view of Heim in order to enable based on at least one average central processing unit (CPU) utilization, over a quantity of CPU cycles satisfying an average CPU utilization threshold. One would be motivated to do so in order to provide for optimized system-wide sharing of resources amongst host machines (Heim, col. 3, lines 63-64).
The combination of Polacek and Heim does not explicitly teach failures occurring within a particular number of minutes.
However, Yang teaches failures occurring within a particular number of minutes (Yang, page 14, paragraph 160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Polacek and Heim in view of Yang in order to enable failures occurring within a particular number of minutes. One would be motivated to do so in order to track a number of consecutive failed jobs of the device; and automatically taking the device offline based on the number of consecutive failed jobs, wherein no further job is automatically assigned to the device by the administration server when the device is offline (Yang, page 2, paragraph 11).
The combination of Polacek, Heim, and Yang does not explicitly teach that have exceeded a maximum average central processing unit (CPU) threshold over a quantity of CPU cycles.
However, Soryal teaches that have exceeded a maximum average central processing unit (CPU) threshold over a quantity of CPU cycles (Soryal, col. 35, lines 7-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Polacek, Heim, and Yang in view of Soryal in order to enable that have exceeded a maximum average central processing unit (CPU) threshold over a quantity of CPU cycles. One would be motivated to do so in order to monitor attempted communications (Soryal, col. 15, lines 5-6).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polacek in view of Yang and further in view of Soryal.
With respect to Claim 23, Polacek teaches the invention described in claim 15, including a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to: identify one or more computational tasks (Polacek, Fig. 10, element 420; col. 11, lines 53-61); identify a plurality of candidate servers in a load-balancing server pool (Polacek, Fig. 4, elements 312, 314, 316, and 318; col. 7, lines 7-11); identify one or more servers (Polacek, col. 8, lines 8-12) by selectively pruning (Polacek, col. 7, lines 36-39 and col. 8, lines 19-21 and 24-26) the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 5, elements 322, 324, 326, 328; col. 7, lines 43-44) based on computational task counts associated with respective candidate servers of the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, col. 10, lines 58-59); identify the one or more servers (Polacek, col. 8, lines 8-12) by selectively pruning (Polacek, col. 7, lines 36-39 and col. 8, lines 19-21 and 24-26) the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 5, elements 322, 324, 326, 328; col. 7, lines 43-44) based further on one or more computational task completion failures occurring within a length of time before the selective pruning of the plurality of candidate servers, wherein the one or more computational task completion failures are associated with one or more candidate servers of the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, col. 7, lines 55-56); and assign the one or more computational tasks to the one or more servers (Polacek, col. 7, line 60 – col. 8, lines 2 and 8-10); and the non-transitory computer-readable medium wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by one of the processors, further cause the device to: remove candidate servers (Polacek, col. 7, lines 36-39 and col. 8, lines 19-21 and 24-26), from the plurality of candidate servers (Polacek, Fig. 5, elements 322, 324, 326, 328; col. 7, lines 43-44).
Polacek does not explicitly teach failures occurring within a particular number of minutes.
However, Yang teaches failures occurring within a particular number of minutes (Yang, page 14, paragraph 160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polacek in view of Yang in order to enable failures occurring within a particular number of minutes. One would be motivated to do so in order to track a number of consecutive failed jobs of the device; and automatically taking the device offline based on the number of consecutive failed jobs, wherein no further job is automatically assigned to the device by the administration server when the device is offline (Yang, page 2, paragraph 11).
The combination of Polacek and Yang does not explicitly teach that have exceeded a maximum average central processing unit (CPU) threshold over a quantity of CPU cycles.
However, Soryal teaches that have exceeded a maximum average central processing unit (CPU) threshold over a quantity of CPU cycles (Soryal, col. 35, lines 7-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Polacek and Yang in view of Soryal in order to enable that have exceeded a maximum average central processing unit (CPU) threshold over a quantity of CPU cycles. One would be motivated to do so in order to monitor attempted communications (Soryal, col. 15, lines 5-6).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 extension fee 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 Alicia Baturay whose telephone number is (571) 272-3981. The examiner can normally be reached at 7am – 4pm, Mondays – Thursdays, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in person, or 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) form at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamal Divecha can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax 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.
/Alicia Baturay/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
February 4, 2026