DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs), submitted on 09 December 2024 and 29 April 2026, were filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 28 June 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, received on 28 June 2024, are acceptable for examination.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dimou (US 20090207820 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Dimou”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 10, Dimou discloses a device comprising:
Memory (¶96-97, Dimou discloses that the control entity comprises a computer readable storage media); and
one or more processors coupled to the memory (¶96-97, Dimou discloses that the control entity further includes a processor coupled to the computer readable storage media), the one or more processors configured to:
obtain, for a plurality of wireless access points, data (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S302), Dimou discloses obtaining information, for at least a first radio access point (RAP1) and a second radio access point (RAP2), a first delay of acknowledgment transmission corresponding to the RAP1 and a second delay of acknowledgment transmission corresponding to the RAP2. Examiner correlates the first delay of ACK transmission and the second delay of ACK transmission to “data”. Examiner correlates the combination of the RAP1 and the RAP2 to “a plurality of access points”) indicative of an event type detected by the plurality of wireless access points (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S302), Dimou discloses that the first delay of ACK transmission and the second delay of ACK transmission indicates an event type where the station terminal is detected to be transmitting an acknowledgment transmission to a correct access point or an incorrect access point);
correlate a first event type detected by a first wireless access point and a second event type detected by a second wireless access point (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S303), Dimou discloses correlating by comparing the first delay of ACK transmission corresponding to the RAP 1 and the second delay of ACK transmission corresponding to the RAP2) based on a similarity of the first event type and the second event type (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S303), Dimou discloses correlating, or comparison, of both the first delay of ACK transmission and the second delay of ACK transmission is based upon the station terminal being similarly located in the coverage area of each AP); and
perform an action for an issue determined based on correlating the first event type and the second event type (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S306), Dimou discloses performing a selection of an access point based on the correlation/comparison of the first delay of ACK transmission and the second delay of ACK transmission).
Regarding Claim 11, Dimou discloses the device of claim 10.
Dimou further discloses wherein the first event type is associated with a first network component of the first wireless access point (¶75 & Fig. 3, Dimou discloses that the first delay of ACK transmission is associated with a station terminal of the RAP1),
wherein the second event type is associated with a second network component of the second wireless access point (¶75 & Fig. 3, Dimou discloses that the second delay of ACK transmission is associated with a station terminal of the RAP2), and
wherein the first network component and the second network component are the same (¶75 & Fig. 3, Dimou discloses that the station terminal of the RAP1 is the station terminal of the RAP2).
Regarding Claim 12, Dimou discloses the device of claim 10.
Dimou discloses wherein to correlate the first event type and the second event type, the one or more processors are further configured to identify a pattern to the data of the first event type and a pattern to the data of the second event type (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S303), Dimou discloses that the correlation, or comparison, of both the first delay of ACK transmission and the second delay of ACK transmission identifies that the station terminal is within the coverage area of the first AP and is within the coverage of the second AP).
Regarding Claim 13, Dimou discloses the device of claim 10.
Dimou further discloses wherein to correlate the first event type and the second event type, the one or more processors are configured to correlate the first event type and the second event type based on the first wireless access point and the second wireless access point being associated with the same site (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S303) & ¶55-56, Dimou discloses that the correlation, or comparison, of both the first delay of ACK transmission and the second delay of ACK transmission is further based on the RAP1 and the RAP2 being coupled to a control entity. ¶55-56, Dimou discloses that the control entity may be co-located with the first access point).
Regarding Claim 14, Dimou discloses the device of claim 10.
Dimou further discloses wherein to perform the action for the issue, the one or more processors are configured to send an instruction to the first wireless access point to modify (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S306), Dimou discloses sending, by the control entity to the first access point, a Multi-Radio-Unification Protocol (MUP) packet to be forwarded by the first access point to the station terminal) at least one of a status of the first wireless access point (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S306), Dimou discloses that a status corresponding to the RAP1 will be modified in the event that the Radio Access Point selection algorithm indicates an access point different from the first access point where the status is whether RAP1 serves the station terminal), a configuration of the first wireless access point (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S306), Dimou discloses that the configuration corresponding to the RAP1 will be modified in the event that the Radio Access Point selection algorithm indicates an access point different from the first access point), data of the first wireless access point (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S306), Dimou discloses that the RAP1 will cease to receive an ACK transmission in the event that the Radio Access Point selection algorithm indicates an access point different from the first access point. Here, the data, the ACK transmission, would change from being received/obtained by the RAP to not being received/obtained by the RAP), a filter of the wireless access point, a software component of the first wireless access point, or a driver of the first wireless access point.
Regarding Claim 15, Dimou discloses the device of claim 10.
Dimou further discloses wherein to perform the action for the issue, the one or more processors are configured to send a notification message (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S306), Dimou discloses sending a Multi-Radio-Unification Protocol (MUP) packet) including information associated with the issue determined based on correlating the first event type and the second event type (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S306), Dimou discloses that the MUP packet includes information associated with a selection of an access point based on the correlation/comparison of the first delay of ACK transmission and the second delay of ACK transmission).
Regarding Claim 16, Dimou discloses the device of claim 10.
Dimou further discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
determine a cause of the issue based on correlating the first event type and the second event type (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S306), Dimou discloses determining that the retransmission of data packets is not optimized to an optimal access point based upon the correlation/comparison of the first delay of ACK transmission and the second delay of ACK transmission).
Regarding Claim 17, Dimou discloses the device of claim 10.
Dimou further discloses wherein the device comprises a wireless access point (¶55-56, Dimou discloses that the control entity may be co-located with the first access point).
Regarding Claim 18, Dimou discloses the device of claim 10.
Dimou further discloses wherein the device comprises a server (¶55-56, Dimou discloses a control entity).
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 10.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12052150 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘150 Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 9 of the ‘150 Patent discloses a device comprising:
Memory (Claim 9 of the ‘150 Patent discloses one or more memories); and
one or more processors coupled to the memory (Claim 9 of the ‘150 Patent discloses hardware processing circuitry. Claim 9 of the ‘150 Patent further discloses one or more memories storing instructions that when executed configure the hardware processing circuitry to perform operations), the one or more processors configured to:
obtain, for a plurality of wireless access points, data indicative of an event type detected by the plurality of wireless access points (Claim 9 of the ‘150 Patent discloses monitoring, based on one more instructions included in an event filter, packets in communication between a client of a first wireless access point and a network service. Examiner correlates packets to “data indicative of an event type”. Claim 13 of the ‘150 Patent discloses receiving a report from the second wireless access point that specifies the event detected by the second wireless access point);
correlate a first event type detected by a first wireless access point and a second event type detected by a second wireless access point based on a similarity of the first event type and the second event type (Claim 9 of the ‘150 Patent discloses determining, by the first wireless access point and based on the one or more instructions included in the event filter, a root cause of an issue relating to the packets monitored in the communication between the client and the network service, wherein determining the root cause of the issue is based on at least a correlation of an event detected by the first wireless access point and an event detected by a second wireless access point); and
perform an action for an issue determined based on correlating the first event type and the second event type (Claim 15 of the ‘150 Patent discloses identifying, based on the determined root cause, an action to mitigate the issue; and transmitting a message specifying the action to mitigate the issue to the network service).
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 10.
Claims 2-9 and 11-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12052150 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘150 Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 17.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 11, Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent discloses the device of claim 10.
However, Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent does not disclose wherein the first event type is associated with a first network component of the first wireless access point, wherein the second event type is associated with a second network component of the second wireless access point, and wherein the first network component and the second network component are the same.
Dimou, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first event type is associated with a first network component of the first wireless access point (¶75 & Fig. 3, Dimou discloses that the first delay of ACK transmission is associated with a station terminal of the RAP1),
wherein the second event type is associated with a second network component of the second wireless access point (¶75 & Fig. 3, Dimou discloses that the second delay of ACK transmission is associated with a station terminal of the RAP2), and
wherein the first network component and the second network component are the same (¶75 & Fig. 3, Dimou discloses that the station terminal of the RAP1 is the station terminal of the RAP2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent by requiring that the first event type is associated with a first network component of the first wireless access point, the second event type is associated with a second network component of the second wireless access point, and the first network component and the second network component are the same as taught by Dimou because the robustness in the transmission of an acknowledgment message by a mobile terminal to the network is improved while minimizing a signaling overhead (Dimou, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 12, Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent discloses the device of claim 10.
However, Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent does not disclose wherein to correlate the first event type and the second event type, the one or more processors are further configured to identify a pattern to the data of the first event type and a pattern to the data of the second event type.
Dimou, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein to correlate the first event type and the second event type, the one or more processors are further configured to identify a pattern to the data of the first event type and a pattern to the data of the second event type (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S303), Dimou discloses that the correlation, or comparison, of both the first delay of ACK transmission and the second delay of ACK transmission identifies that the station terminal is within the coverage area of the first AP and is within the coverage of the second AP).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent by requiring that wherein to correlate the first event type and the second event type, the one or more processors are further configured to identify a pattern to the data of the first event type and a pattern to the data of the second event type as taught by Dimou because the robustness in the transmission of an acknowledgment message by a mobile terminal to the network is improved while minimizing a signaling overhead (Dimou, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 13, Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent discloses the device of claim 10.
However, Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent does not disclose wherein to correlate the first event type and the second event type, the one or more processors are configured to correlate the first event type and the second event type based on the first wireless access point and the second wireless access point being associated with the same site.
Dimou, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein to correlate the first event type and the second event type, the one or more processors are configured to correlate the first event type and the second event type based on the first wireless access point and the second wireless access point being associated with the same site (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S303) & ¶55-56, Dimou discloses that the correlation, or comparison, of both the first delay of ACK transmission and the second delay of ACK transmission is further based on the RAP1 and the RAP2 being coupled to a control entity. ¶55-56, Dimou discloses that the control entity may be co-located with the first access point).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent by requiring that wherein to correlate the first event type and the second event type, the one or more processors are configured to correlate the first event type and the second event type based on the first wireless access point and the second wireless access point being associated with the same site as taught by Dimou because the robustness in the transmission of an acknowledgment message by a mobile terminal to the network is improved while minimizing a signaling overhead (Dimou, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 14, Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent discloses the device of claim 10.
However, Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent does not disclose wherein to perform the action for the issue, the one or more processors are configured to send an instruction to the first wireless access point to modify at least one of a status of the first wireless access point, a configuration of the first wireless access point, data of the first wireless access point, a filter of the wireless access point, a software component of the first wireless access point, or a driver of the first wireless access point.
Dimou, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein to perform the action for the issue, the one or more processors are configured to send an instruction to the first wireless access point to modify (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S306), Dimou discloses sending, by the control entity to the first access point, a Multi-Radio-Unification Protocol (MUP) packet to be forwarded by the first access point to the station terminal) at least one of a status of the first wireless access point (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S306), Dimou discloses that a status corresponding to the RAP1 will be modified in the event that the Radio Access Point selection algorithm indicates an access point different from the first access point where the status is whether RAP1 serves the station terminal), a configuration of the first wireless access point (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S306), Dimou discloses that the configuration corresponding to the RAP1 will be modified in the event that the Radio Access Point selection algorithm indicates an access point different from the first access point), data of the first wireless access point (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S306), Dimou discloses that the RAP1 will cease to receive an ACK transmission in the event that the Radio Access Point selection algorithm indicates an access point different from the first access point. Here, the data, the ACK transmission, would change from being received/obtained by the RAP to not being received/obtained by the RAP), a filter of the wireless access point, a software component of the first wireless access point, or a driver of the first wireless access point.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent by requiring that wherein to perform the action for the issue, the one or more processors are configured to send an instruction to the first wireless access point to modify at least one of a status of the first wireless access point, a configuration of the first wireless access point, or data of the first wireless access point as taught by Dimou because the robustness in the transmission of an acknowledgment message by a mobile terminal to the network is improved while minimizing a signaling overhead (Dimou, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 15, Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent discloses the device of claim 10.
However, Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent does not disclose wherein to perform the action for the issue, the one or more processors are configured to send a notification message including information associated with the issue determined based on correlating the first event type and the second event type.
Dimou, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein to perform the action for the issue, the one or more processors are configured to send a notification message (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S306), Dimou discloses sending a Multi-Radio-Unification Protocol (MUP) packet) including information associated with the issue determined based on correlating the first event type and the second event type (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S306), Dimou discloses that the MUP packet includes information associated with a selection of an access point based on the correlation/comparison of the first delay of ACK transmission and the second delay of ACK transmission).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent by requiring that wherein to perform the action for the issue, the one or more processors are configured to send a notification message including information associated with the issue determined based on correlating the first event type and the second event type as taught by Dimou because the robustness in the transmission of an acknowledgment message by a mobile terminal to the network is improved while minimizing a signaling overhead (Dimou, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 16, Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent discloses the device of claim 10.
However, Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent does not disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a cause of the issue based on correlating the first event type and the second event type.
Dimou, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
determine a cause of the issue based on correlating the first event type and the second event type (¶75 & Fig. 3 (S306), Dimou discloses determining that the retransmission of data packets is not optimized to an optimal access point based upon the correlation/comparison of the first delay of ACK transmission and the second delay of ACK transmission).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent by requiring that wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a cause of the issue based on correlating the first event type and the second event type as taught by Dimou because the robustness in the transmission of an acknowledgment message by a mobile terminal to the network is improved while minimizing a signaling overhead (Dimou, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 17, Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent discloses the device of claim 10.
However, Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent does not disclose wherein the device comprises a wireless access point.
Dimou, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the device comprises a wireless access point (¶55-56, Dimou discloses that the control entity may be co-located with the first access point).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent by requiring that wherein the device comprises a wireless access point as taught by Dimou because the robustness in the transmission of an acknowledgment message by a mobile terminal to the network is improved while minimizing a signaling overhead (Dimou, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 18, Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent discloses the device of claim 10.
However, Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent does not disclose wherein the device comprises a server.
Dimou, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the device comprises a server (¶55-56, Dimou discloses a control entity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claims 9, 13, and 15 of the ‘150 Patent by requiring that wherein the device comprises a server as taught by Dimou because the robustness in the transmission of an acknowledgment message by a mobile terminal to the network is improved while minimizing a signaling overhead (Dimou, Abstract).
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights