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 IDS filed July 16, 2024 has been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “one or more controller to control” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitations “one or more controllers to control the network,” and “one or more controllers control each RDMA” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The controllers are just generic processors executing unspecified software with no concrete steps, or equations. They do not disclose sufficient structure or definite algorithm to perform the functions as claimed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 2, the term “bottleneck” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “bottleneck” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Without quantitative criteria (e.g. highest utilization among links, or limiting throughput), one of ordinary skill in the art might interpret the “bottleneck” differently, therefore making the limitation indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “a target utilization of the network independent of the bandwidth of the network.” In view of the specification, page 14, paragraph 50, a target utilization is used as a basis for setting bandwidth. It is unclear as to how this is independent as claimed.
Regarding claims 4-6, 12, 14 and 16, the claims recite “RDMA layer-4 architecture”, “RDMA layer-2 equipment”, and “RDMA layer-3 equipment”. As known in the art, RDMA is typically defined by transport layer (e.g. RoCE), not as its own OSI layer. The specification does not provide clear definition of RDMA layer-2, 3, or 4. Therefore, it is unclear as to how these ties to conventional OSI concepts.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 11-16, the claims recite “equivalent connection.” It is unclear what is intended by “equivalent.”
Claims 11-16 recite in part: “wherein each link of the plurality of links between an electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a transmitter of traffic across the network (transmitter) and another electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a receiver of the traffic across the network (receiver).” It is unclear as to whether or not the recitations inside the parentheses are part of the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gandhi et al. (US 20180241809, hereinafter referred to as “Gandhi”).
Regarding claim 1, Gandhi teaches a method comprising:
implementing a plurality of remote direct memory access (RDMA) processes across a network connecting a plurality of electronic devices via a plurality of links (abstract - a remote direct memory access (“RDMA”) connection between an originating server and one or more other servers); and
providing one or more controllers to control the network (abstract – load balancer; figure 3: load balancer 113 controls all the traffic between nodes containing RDMA);
wherein the one or more controllers control each RDMA process of the plurality of RDMA processes (abstract - a load balancer via the computer network requesting a remote direct memory access (“RDMA”) connection between an originating server and one or more other servers selectable by the load balancer.).
Regarding claim 4, Gandhi teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more controllers establish an L4 traffic control methodology for the plurality of RDMA processes provide a RDMA L4 architecture ([0003] RDMA-over-Converged-Ethernet (“ROCE”) protocol has been developed to transport RDMA traffic in an IP network.); each link of the plurality of links between an electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices and another electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices further comprises a virtual connection in addition to the one or more connections of the plurality of RDMA processes ([0004] During operation, when a source (e.g., a server or virtual machine) starts a connection, routers or switches in a computer network can forward packets to a load balancer. The load balancer then randomly selects an end point (e.g., a virtual machine), encapsulates the packets with an IP address of the virtual machine, and forwards the encapsulated packets to a server hosting the virtual machine. At the server, a host agent (e.g., a hypervisor) receives the packets, decapsulates the packets, performs network address translation, and forwards the packets to the virtual machine.).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandhi in view of Thirasuttakorn (US 9246819, hereinafter referred to as “Thira”).
Regarding claim 3, Gandhi does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more controllers control the network based upon a target utilization of the network independent of the bandwidth of the network.
In an analogous art, Thira teaches wherein the one or more controllers control the network based upon a target utilization of the network independent of the bandwidth of the network (abstract - A message-based load balancing decision is performed on the datagram to assign the datagram to a first server. The first connection-less protocol datagram is converted into a first encapsulated data packet in accordance with a second connection-oriented protocol and is sent from a first virtual server to the first server based on the message-based load balancing decision.). Before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to enable the controllers to control the network base upon a target utilization as another way of load balancing, thus expanding known controller-based load balancing methods.
Regarding claim 8, Gandhi does not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more controllers employ per-message load balancing rather than per-flow load balancing. Thira teaches wherein the one or more controllers employ per-message load balancing rather than per-flow load balancing (abstract - message-based load balancing). The motivation to combine is the same as claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, Gandhi does not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more controllers employ per-message load balancing rather than per-flow load balancing; and the one or more controllers do not schedule traffic within the network. Thira teaches wherein the one or more controllers employ per-message load balancing rather than per-flow load balancing; and the one or more controllers do not schedule traffic within the network (abstract - message-based load balancing). The motivation to combine is the same as claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5-7, 10-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record does not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more controller manage the plurality of RDMA processes on the basis that each receiver associated with one or more links of the plurality of links and one or more RDMA processes of the plurality of RDMA processes is a bottleneck in those at least one or more RDMA processes of the plurality of RDMA processes and defines the speed at which those one or more RDMA processes of the plurality of RDMA processes proceed.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record does not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more controllers establish a traffic control methodology for the plurality of RDMA processes that provide a RDMA layer-4 architecture; each electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices is an item of RDMA layer-2 equipment or an item of RDMA layer-3 equipment; each link of the plurality of links between an electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices and another electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices further comprises a virtual connection in addition to the one or more connections of the plurality of RDMA processes; and each virtual connection provides an equivalent connection to that provided by end-to-end network interface card queue pair connections.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record does not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein each link of the plurality of links between an electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices and another electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices further comprises a virtual connection in addition to the one or more connections of the plurality of RDMA processes; each virtual connection provides an equivalent connection to that provided by end-to-end network interface card queue pair connections; and the network operates as an RDMA layer-4 architecture with only a subset of the plurality of electronic devices being items of RDMA layer-2 equipment and a remainder of the plurality of electronic devices being items of RDMA layer-3 equipment.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record does not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more controllers execute a sequence comprising: determining for each electronic devices of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a receiver of traffic across the network a bandwidth of the receiver within the network; establishing a predetermined factor of the bandwidth of the receiver as a quota; establishing a set of virtual connections (VCs) where each VC of the set of VCs is between an electronic device of the plurality of electronics devices acting as a transmitter of traffic across the network and the receiver; establishing a subset of the set of VCs as active VCs; establishing the remainder of the set of VCs as inactive VCs; allocating the quota to subset of the set of VCs as a set of quotas; establishing in dependence upon the remainder of the set of VCs a maximum message transmission unit (MTU) and the difference between the quota and the bandwidth of the receiver a number N of short messages; communicating the number N to the inactive VCs; and communicating the set of quotas to the active VCs; and N is a positive integer.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record does not teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising a plurality of buffers, each buffer of the plurality of buffers associated with an electronic device of the plurality of electronics devices acting as a transmitter of traffic across the network; the one or more controllers execute a traffic management algorithm which employs per-message load balancing rather than per-flow load balancing; and performance objectives of the traffic management algorithm are no scheduling of traffic within the network and minimum data with the plurality of buffers waiting to be traffic within the network.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record does not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein each link of the plurality of links between an electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a transmitter of traffic across the network (transmitter) and another electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a receiver of the traffic across the network (receiver) further comprises a virtual connection in addition to the one or more connections of the plurality of RDMA processes; each virtual connection provides an equivalent connection to that provided by end-to-end network interface card queue pair connections; each electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a transmitter of traffic across the network executes a quota algorithm comprising the steps of: creating a queue pair for the VC between the transmitter and the receiver; establishing the queue pair over the VC between the transmitter and the receiver; and dynamically adjusting a quota applied by the transmitter to the RDMA process of the plurality of RDMA processes between the transmitter and the receiver based upon data received from the receiver; and the receiver dynamically adjusts the quota provided to the transmitter.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record does not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein each link of the plurality of links between an electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a transmitter of traffic across the network (transmitter) and another electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a receiver of the traffic across the network (receiver) further comprises a virtual connection in addition to the one or more connections of the plurality of RDMA processes; each virtual connection provides an equivalent connection to that provided by end-to-end network interface card queue pair connections; each electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a transmitter of traffic across the network executes a quota algorithm comprising the steps of: creating a queue pair for the VC between the transmitter and the receiver; establishing the queue pair over the VC between the transmitter and the receiver; and dynamically adjusting a quota applied by the transmitter to the RDMA process of the plurality of RDMA processes between the transmitter and the receiver based upon data received from the receiver; the receiver dynamically adjusts the quota provided to the transmitter; and the network operates as a RDMA layer-4 architecture with only a subset of the plurality of electronic devices being items of RDMA layer-2 equipment and a remainder of the plurality of electronic devices being items of RDMA layer-3 equipment.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record does not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein each link of the plurality of links between an electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a transmitter of traffic across the network (transmitter) and another electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a receiver of the traffic across the network (receiver) further comprises a virtual connection in addition to the one or more connections of the plurality of RDMA processes; each virtual connection provides an equivalent connection to that provided by end-to-end network interface card queue pair connections; each electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a transmitter of traffic across the network executes a quota algorithm comprising the steps of: creating a queue pair for the VC between the transmitter and the receiver; establishing the queue pair over the VC between the transmitter and the receiver; and dynamically adjusting a quota applied by the transmitter to the RDMA process of the plurality of RDMA processes between the transmitter and the receiver based upon data received from the receiver; and each electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a receiver of traffic across the network executes another quota algorithm wherein the another quota algorithm comprising the steps of: establishing an initial set of quotas for the electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as the receiver of traffic across the network where each quota of the set of quotas is associated with an electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices providing traffic across the network to the electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as the receiver of traffic across the network; and dynamically adjusting each quota of the set of quotas in dependence upon one or more applications being executed by a system receiving the traffic from the electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as the receiver of traffic across the network.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record does not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein each link of the plurality of links between an electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a transmitter of traffic across the network (transmitter) and another electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a receiver of the traffic across the network (receiver) further comprises a virtual connection in addition to the one or more connections of the plurality of RDMA processes; each virtual connection provides an equivalent connection to that provided by end-to-end network interface card queue pair connections; each electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a transmitter of traffic across the network executes a quota algorithm comprising the steps of: creating a queue pair for the VC between the transmitter and the receiver; establishing the queue pair over the VC between the transmitter and the receiver; and dynamically adjusting a quota applied by the transmitter to the RDMA process of the plurality of RDMA processes between the transmitter and the receiver based upon data received from the receiver; each electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a receiver of traffic across the network executes another quota algorithm wherein the another quota algorithm comprising the steps of: establishing an initial set of quotas for the electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as the receiver of traffic across the network where each quota of the set of quotas is associated with an electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices providing traffic across the network to the electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as the receiver of traffic across the network; and dynamically adjusting each quota of the set of quotas in dependence upon one or more applications being executed by a system receiving the traffic from the electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as the receiver of traffic across the network; and the network operates as an RDMA layer-4 architecture with only a subset of the plurality of electronic devices being items of RDMA layer-2 equipment and a remainder of the plurality of electronic devices being items of RDMA layer-3 equipment.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record does not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein each link of the plurality of links between an electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a transmitter of traffic across the network (transmitter) and another electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a receiver of the traffic across the network (receiver) further comprises a virtual connection in addition to the one or more connections of the plurality of RDMA processes; each virtual connection provides an equivalent connection to that provided by end-to-end network interface card queue pair connections; each electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a transmitter of traffic across the network executes a quota algorithm comprising the steps of: creating a queue pair for the VC between the transmitter and the receiver; establishing the queue pair over the VC between the transmitter and the receiver; and dynamically adjusting a quota applied by the transmitter to the RDMA process of the plurality of RDMA processes between the transmitter and the receiver based upon data received from the receiver; each electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a transmitter of traffic across the network can only increase the quota based upon the data received from the receiver; and the receiver dynamically adjusts the quota provided to the transmitter.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record does not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein each link of the plurality of links between an electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a transmitter of traffic across the network (transmitter) and another electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a receiver of the traffic across the network (receiver) further comprises a virtual connection in addition to the one or more connections of the plurality of RDMA processes; each virtual connection provides an equivalent connection to that provided by end-to-end network interface card queue pair connections; each electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices acting as a transmitter of traffic across the network executes a quota algorithm comprising the steps of: creating a queue pair for the VC between the transmitter and the receiver; establishing the queue pair over the VC between the transmitter and the receiver; and dynamically adjusting a quota applied by the transmitter to the RDMA process of the plurality of RDMA processes between the transmitter and the receiver based upon data received from the receiver; the receiver dynamically adjusts the quota provided to the transmitter based upon the performance of the queue pair for the VC between the transmitter and the receiver.
Claims 17 and 18 depend on allowed claim 16, therefore are also would be allowed to for their dependencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shilimkar et al., US 20220210225 - enable Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) traffic (e.g., RDMA over Converged Ethernet (RoCE) traffic) to be communicated from a compute instance on a multi-tenant host machine using different protocol layers.
Pan et al., US 20200213246 – SDN controller for connecting RDMA-based connections.
Byers et al., US 20200125529 - implementing RDMA RoCE to ease bottlenecks.
Ganguli et al., US 20190354406 - remote direct memory access (RDMA) queue pair quality of service (QoS) management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA N BOUTAH whose telephone number is (571)272-3908. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at (571) 270-3037. 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.
ALINA BOUTAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2458
/ALINA A BOUTAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458