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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 9-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitation that fails to comply with 112(a) is without requiring an explicit messaging channel between the OLT and the one or more additional OLTs to coordinate the changing the OLT to the Active state. Independent claims 9 and 17 both contain this limitation making them and their dependents improper.
Applicant points to several paragraphs within the specification as teaching this limitation:
The present disclosure relates to systems and methods for PON fault notification in a multi-homed protection environment. In particular, the present disclosure includes novel techniques used for locally hosted OLTs, that are connected to a switch/router, to notify the switch/router of state changes of the OLT to support protection switching strategies. As described herein, locally hosted means the OLTs are modules, e.g., line modules, pluggable modules, etc., hosted by a switch/router. These locally hosted OLTs are configured to communicate status to the switch/router without the disadvantages of the inter-OLT communication channel and the data path learning. That is, the approach described herein is quick, similar to the inter-OLT communication channel, and efficient due to the OLTs being locally hosted, i.e., without wasting data ports on the switch/router as with the inter-OLT communication channel.
([0003]). Applicant also points to paragraph 19 which states “A protection switching scheme that does not require a messaging channel between multi-homed switches/routers to coordinate the switchover of traffic due to a fault within the PON.” Applicant further points to paragraph 39:
FIG. 5 is a flowchart of an OLT fault detection process 50 with two steps, to ensure there is no Active/Active situations. Specifically, the logic/steps in the OLT fault detection process 50 prevent OLTs within an active protection group from inadvertently being in an Active/Active situation. The OLT fault detection process 50 is implemented by the OLTs 14A, 14B that are standby OLTs when there is a PON fault detected. Specifically, the objective of the OLT fault detection process 50 is to leverage the fact the OLTs 14A, 14B are locally hosted in the routers 18A, 18B, and to ensure there is no “split brain” scenario, without requiring an explicit communication channel between the OLTs 14A, 14B for coordination.
None of these paragraphs teach that which is claimed. Therefore claims 9-20 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for new matter.
Claim 9-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The limitation that fails to comply with 112(a) is without requiring an explicit messaging channel between the OLT and the one or more additional OLTs to coordinate the changing the OLT to the Active state. Independent claims 9 and 17 both contain this limitation making them and their dependents improper.
Paragraphs 3 and 19 appear before the detailed description even begins and are expectingly bereft of detail. Paragraph 39, while containing more descripting, merely explains that because the OLTs “are locally hosted in the routers” this ensures that “there is no “split brain” scenario.” In other words, the goal of the alleged invention is to avoid an active active situation without the OLTs communicating with each other.
Going beyond what is cited by applicant, FIG. 5 illustrates a flowchart of how each OLT determines to go active. The first step in FIG. 5 is “Pon Fault detected” and paragraph 40 is the only paragraph that appears provide details on this step. Paragraph 41 states:
The OLT fault detection process 50 includes monitoring to detect a PON fault (step 52). Again, the present disclosure contemplates any technique for detecting faults, including, e.g., communication between the OLTs 14, link monitoring, network performance threshold monitoring, alerts such as from a management system or PON controller, manual triggering, or any other approach.
(emphasis added). This listing of options does not explain to a PHOSITA how an active active situation can be avoided without the OLTs communicating with each other.
On the back end of the FIG. 5 flowchart at “notify router of state change” (step 60) the same problem appears. It is also important to note that nowhere in the spec is router defined which leads to a broad interpretation of what a router could entail. The only sentence that describes step 60 states “This would lead the OLT to confirm its transition to Active, by changing its state from Standby to Active (step 42) and notifying the router of state change (step 60).” If the secondary OLT is sending an active notification through its own router, then the primary OLT’s router, and then to the primary OLT itself, how is this not still an “explicit messaging channel” between the OLTs? How are the OLTs not still coordinating with each other to avoid an active active situation? And the description fails to answer these questions. Therefore, claims 9-20 are being rejected under 112(a) for lack of enablement.
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.
Claim(s) Claim(s) 1-4, 7-12, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (EP 4,084,492 A1) in light of Reuche (US Pat. App. Pub. 2024/0413899 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Li teaches An Optical Line Terminal (OLT) (FIG. 1: 103) comprising: a transmitter and a receiver (Id.), each connected to a Passive Optical Network (PON) (FIG. 1: “PON LT”) having protection therein ([0027]) where the OLT is in a protection group with one or more additional OLTs, (FIG. 1: 103, 104) and wherein the OLT is in a Standby state ([0027]; “When the primary OLT 103 fails, the secondary OLT 104 may reproduce the logical state of the primary OLT 103 with a minimum delay”) in which a PON interface of the OLT is off (Table 1: “standby” (the secondary OLT is not interfacing with the PON when in standby mode)) while Ethernet switching remains enabled for management (Table 1 (it is inherent that the secondary OLT is connected when in standby in order to know when to switch to active)); and circuitry configured to turn on the transmitter by turning on a laser of the OLT (it is inherent that the OLT would include a laser that has to be activated for an optical transmission to take place); based on detection of a fault in the PON (Id.), and check if the fault is still detected after the transmitter is turned on, and ([0064-0065]; “the secondary OLT 104 fails to receive the P2P message from the primary OLT 103 in the second given time window, which triggers the PeerFail notification”), responsive to the fault not being detected after the state of the transmitter is turned on, change the OLT to an Active state. (Id., “the secondary OLT 104, which does not receive the optical signal upstream from the ONU 101 either, fails to correctly trigger the Light-Not-Seen interrupt, whereby the second PON protection decision module of the secondary OLT 104 determines not to switch but to remain standby”)
Li does not teach by monitoring for resumption of PON activity after the laser has been turned on
Reuche teaches by monitoring for resumption of PON activity after the laser has been turned on (FIG. 5a: E503).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li’s secondary OLT to include Reuche’s method of checking for a fault in the PON network upon activating the laser. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein, the predictable result is a secondary OLT that, when activated, checks for a fault in the PON network after activating the laser.
Reuche and Li are both relate to optical communication systems and are therefore analogous art.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Li and Reuche teaches The OLT of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to responsive to the fault still being detected after the transmitter is turned on, turn off the transmitter. (Li, [0057-0060], “Scenario 2: Fiber Fault Event Occurring to Secondary OLT 104”).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li’s secondary OLT to include Reuche’s method of checking for a fault in the PON network upon activating the laser. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein, the predictable result is a secondary OLT that, when activated, checks for a fault in the PON network after activating the laser.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Li and Reuche teaches The OLT of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to subsequent to changing the OLT to an Active state, notify a router associated with the OLT of the Active state. (Li, FIG. 1: 101, 104; [0031]).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li’s secondary OLT to include Reuche’s method of checking for a fault in the PON network upon activating the laser. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein, the predictable result is a secondary OLT that, when activated, checks for a fault in the PON network after activating the laser.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Li and Reuche teaches The OLT of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to maintain a state of the OLT as one of the Standby state and the Active state, without coordination with the one or more additional OLTs. (Li, [0031] (describing the OLT operating independently).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li’s secondary OLT to include Reuche’s method of checking for a fault in the PON network upon activating the laser. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein, the predictable result is a secondary OLT that, when activated, checks for a fault in the PON network after activating the laser.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Li and Reuche teaches The OLT of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to responsive to a request from an associated router, communicate a status to the associated router. (Li, FIG. 1: 101, 104; [0031]).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li’s secondary OLT to include Reuche’s method of checking for a fault in the PON network upon activating the laser. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein, the predictable result is a secondary OLT that, when activated, checks for a fault in the PON network after activating the laser.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Li and Reuche teaches The OLT of claim 7, wherein the status is communicated by the associated router reading a register in the circuitry. (Li, FIG. 1: 101, 104; [0031]).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li’s secondary OLT to include Reuche’s method of checking for a fault in the PON network upon activating the laser. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein, the predictable result is a secondary OLT that, when activated, checks for a fault in the PON network after activating the laser.
Regarding Claim 9, Li teaches A method comprising steps of: in an Optical Line Terminal (OLT) (FIG. 1: 103) including a transmitter and a receiver (Id.), each connected to a Passive Optical Network (PON) (FIG. 1: “PON LT”) having protection therein ([0027]) where the OLT is in a protection group with one or more additional OLTs (FIG. 1: 103, 104), wherein the OLT is in a Standby state ([0027]; “When the primary OLT 103 fails, the secondary OLT 104 may reproduce the logical state of the primary OLT 103 with a minimum delay”) in which a PON interface of the OLT is off while Ethernet switching remains enabled for management (Table 1: “standby” (the secondary OLT is not interfacing with the PON when in standby mode)), turning on the transmitter by turning on a laser of the OLT (it is inherent that the OLT would include a laser that has to be activated for an optical transmission to take place) based on detection of a fault in the PON ([0027]; “When the primary OLT 103 fails, the secondary OLT 104 may reproduce the logical state of the primary OLT 103 with a minimum delay”); and checking if the fault is still detected after the transmitter is turned on ([0064-0065]; “the secondary OLT 104 fails to receive the P2P message from the primary OLT 103 in the second given time window, which triggers the PeerFail notification”), and, responsive to the fault not being detected after the state of the transmitter is turned on, changing the OLT to an Active state (Id., “the secondary OLT 104, which does not receive the optical signal upstream from the ONU 101 either, fails to correctly trigger the Light-Not-Seen interrupt, whereby the second PON protection decision module of the secondary OLT 104 determines not to switch but to remain standby”) without requiring an explicit messaging channel between the OLT and the one or more additional OLTs to coordinate the changing the OLT to the Active state. (the final portion of this claim is considered to be nonlimiting as it is new matter and not enabled).
Li does not teach by monitoring for resumption of PON activity after the laser has been turned on
Reuche teaches by monitoring for resumption of PON activity after the laser has been turned on (FIG. 5a: E503).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li’s secondary OLT to include Reuche’s method of checking for a fault in the PON network upon activating the laser. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein, the predictable result is a secondary OLT that, when activated, checks for a fault in the PON network after activating the laser.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Li and Reuche teaches The method of claim 9, wherein the steps further include responsive to the fault still being detected after the transmitter is turned on, turning off the transmitter. (Li, [0057-0060], “Scenario 2: Fiber Fault Event Occurring to Secondary OLT 104”)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li’s secondary OLT to include Reuche’s method of checking for a fault in the PON network upon activating the laser. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein, the predictable result is a secondary OLT that, when activated, checks for a fault in the PON network after activating the laser.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Li and Reuche teaches The method of claim 9, wherein the steps further include subsequent to changing the OLT to an Active state, notifying a router associated with the OLT of the Active state. (Li, FIG. 1: 101, 104; [0031]).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li’s secondary OLT to include Reuche’s method of checking for a fault in the PON network upon activating the laser. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein, the predictable result is a secondary OLT that, when activated, checks for a fault in the PON network after activating the laser.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Li and Reuche teaches The method of claim 9, wherein the steps further include maintaining a state of the OLT as one of the Standby state and the Active state, without coordination with the one or more additional OLTs. (Li, [0031] (describing the OLT operating independently). (Li, FIG. 1: 101, 104; [0031]).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li’s secondary OLT to include Reuche’s method of checking for a fault in the PON network upon activating the laser. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein, the predictable result is a secondary OLT that, when activated, checks for a fault in the PON network after activating the laser.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Li and Reuche teaches The method of claim 9, wherein the steps further include responsive to a request from an associated router, communicating a status to the associated router. (Li, FIG. 1: 101, 104; [0031]).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li’s secondary OLT to include Reuche’s method of checking for a fault in the PON network upon activating the laser. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein, the predictable result is a secondary OLT that, when activated, checks for a fault in the PON network after activating the laser.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Li and Reuche teaches The method of claim 15, wherein the status is communicated by the associated router reading a register in the circuitry. (Li, FIG. 1: 101, 104; [0031]).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li’s secondary OLT to include Reuche’s method of checking for a fault in the PON network upon activating the laser. Such a combination would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield a predictable result. Wherein, the predictable result is a secondary OLT that, when activated, checks for a fault in the PON network after activating the laser.
Claim(s) 5-6, 13-14, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (EP 4,084,492 A1) in light of Reuche (US Pat. App. Pub. 2024/0413899 A1) and in further light of Westfall (Westfall R., OFC 2024: Cisco Routed PON Debuts Uplifting Broadband Economics, The Futurum Group (March 20, 2024)).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Li and Reuche teaches The OLT of claim 1,
the combination of Li and Reuche does not teach wherein the OLT is a pluggable module being housed in an associated router.
Westfall teaches wherein the OLT is a pluggable module being housed in an associated router. (¶2)
Li and Westfall both teach PON communication network apparatuses and are therefore analogous art.
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to look to Westfall’s pluggable OLT — that can be inserted into a router — and to modify the OLT taught in Li to be like Westfall’s. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow for Li’s OLT to be quickly combined with a router.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Reuche, Li and Westfall teach The OLT of claim 5, wherein the circuitry is further configured to communicate the change to the Active state by toggling or pulsing a pin between the pluggable module and the associated router. (Westfall, ¶2)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to look to Westfall’s pluggable OLT — that can be inserted into a router — and to modify the OLT taught in Li to be like Westfall’s. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow for Li’s OLT to be quickly combined with a router.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Li and Westfall teach The method of claim 9, wherein the OLT is a pluggable module being housed in an associated router. (Westfall, ¶2)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to look to Westfall’s pluggable OLT — that can be inserted into a router — and to modify the OLT taught in Li to be like Westfall’s. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow for Li’s OLT to be quickly combined with a router.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Li and Westfall teach The method of claim 13, wherein the steps further include communicating the changing to the Active state by toggling or pulsing a pin between the pluggable module and the associated router. (Westfall, ¶2)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to look to Westfall’s pluggable OLT — that can be inserted into a router — and to modify the OLT taught in Li to be like Westfall’s. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow for Li’s OLT to be quickly combined with a router.
Regarding Claim 17, Li teaches An Optical Line Terminal (OLT) (FIG. 1: 103), comprising: a transmitter and a receiver (Id.), each connected to a Passive Optical Network (PON) (FIG. 1: “PON LT”) having protection therein where the OLT is in a protection group with one or more additional OLTs (FIG. 1: 103, 104; [0027]), and circuitry configured to maintain a state of the OLT in the protection group as one of Active and Standby ([0027]; , wherein, when in Standby, a PON interface of the OLT is off while Ethernet switching remains enabled for management (Table 1 (it is inherent that the secondary OLT is connected when in standby in order to know when to switch to active)), “When the primary OLT 103 fails, the secondary OLT 104 may reproduce the logical state of the primary OLT 103 with a minimum delay”), and toggle a pin including a Loss of Signal (LOS) pin between the pluggable module and the one of the switch and the router to indicate a change in the state. (FIG. 1: 101, 104; [0031]) wherein the state is determined by the OLT based on PON fault detection without requiring an explicit messaging channel between the OLT and the one or more additional OLTs for coordination (the final portion of this claim is considered to be nonlimiting as it is new matter and not enabled).
Li does not teach in a pluggable module configured to operate in one of a switch and a router,
Westfall teaches in a pluggable module configured to operate in one of a switch and a router (¶2)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to look to Westfall’s pluggable OLT — that can be inserted into a router — and to modify the OLT taught in Li to be like Westfall’s. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow for Li’s OLT to be quickly combined with a router.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Li and Westfall teach The OLT of claim 17, wherein the state is changed based on detection of a fault in the PON, independent of coordination with the one or more additional OLTs. (Li, [0031] (describing the OLT operating independently).
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to look to Westfall’s pluggable OLT — that can be inserted into a router — and to modify the OLT taught in Li to be like Westfall’s. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow for Li’s OLT to be quickly combined with a router.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Li and Westfall teach The OLT of claim 17, wherein, when the state is Standby, the change in the state is based on detecting the fault, turning on the transmitter, and checking if the fault is not present after turning on the transmitter. (Li, [0064-0065], “the secondary OLT 104, which does not receive the optical signal upstream from the ONU 101 either, fails to correctly trigger the Light-Not-Seen interrupt, whereby the second PON protection decision module of the secondary OLT 104 determines not to switch but to remain standby”)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to look to Westfall’s pluggable OLT — that can be inserted into a router — and to modify the OLT taught in Li to be like Westfall’s. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow for Li’s OLT to be quickly combined with a router.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Li and Westfall teach wherein, when the state is Active, the change in the state is based on detecting the fault, and turning off the transmitter. ([0057-0060], “Scenario 2: Fiber Fault Event Occurring to Secondary OLT 104”)
Before the filing date of the instant application, it would have obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to look to Westfall’s pluggable OLT — that can be inserted into a router — and to modify the OLT taught in Li to be like Westfall’s. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow for Li’s OLT to be quickly combined with a router.
Response to Arguments
Li teaches a Standby state in which a PON interface of the OLT is off while Ethernet switching remains enabled for management. Applicant disagrees, (3/13/26 remarks: p. 9, ¶ 3), but it is necessary for Li’s OLT to remain connected in order for it know when to switch from active to standby. Thus, it is inherent that this limitation is taught by Li, and applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Li does not teach circuitry configured to turn on the transmitter by turning on a laser of the OLT and monitoring for resumption of PON activity after the laser has been turned on. (3/13/26 remarks: p. 9, ¶ 4). Applicant is partially correct in this argument. Li does not teach checking for PON activity, but it would inherently teach transmitting by a laser as this is how almost any optical transmitter would transmit. Thus, part of applicant’s argument is persuasive, but the added limitation is being rejected by Reuche.
Applicant next argues that Li does not teach without requiring an explicit messaging channel between the OLT and the one or more additional OLTs to coordinate the changing the OLT to the Active state. (3/13/26 remarks: p. 10, ¶ 2). Applicant’s arguments are persuasive, but this new limitation is being rejected under 112(a).
Li teaches a “router” as claimed. Applicant disagrees, (3/13/26 remarks: p. 10, ¶ 3), but because “router” is not defined in the specification, a broad interpretation of what is also a router can be used. Because the primary and secondary OLTs in Li are capable of passing messages between each other like the routers in the application do, Li teaches routers as claimed. Applicant’s argument is thus unpersuasive.
Westfall teaches an OLT that is a pluggable module configured to operate in one of a switch and a router. Applicant disagrees (3/13/26 remarks: p. 12, ¶ 1). Westfall describes “integrating the Cisco PON pluggable OLT into the 10G Ethernet ports found on the Cisco NCS 540, NCS 5500, and NCS 5700 routers.” ¶ 2. This is what is claimed by applicant. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M BROCK whose telephone number is (571)272-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30pm.
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, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached at (571) 272-3078. 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.
/PAUL MORGAN BROCK/Examiner, Art Unit 2634 May 4, 2026
/KENNETH N VANDERPUYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights