Detailed Action
Claims 1-25 are pending and have been fully examined.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103
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.
Such claim limitations are:
An apparatus comprising: means for retrieving a health metric and a time metric from one or more of a plurality of registers of a memory device… in claim 21
An apparatus comprising:… means for determining a usage metric based on dividing the health metric by the time metric… in claim 21
An apparatus comprising:… means for retrieving a threshold value associated with the usage metric from one or more of the plurality of registers… in claim 21
An apparatus comprising:… means for transmitting an over-usage indication to a host device responsive to the usage metric satisfying the threshold value.… in claim 21
An apparatus comprising:…means for terminating one or more applications at the apparatus based on: the usage metric satisfying the threshold value... in claim 21
Regarding independent claim 21 and the above-noted three-prong test, the recited apparatus is a generic placeholder, which is used for retrieving a health metric and a time metric from one or more of a plurality of registers of a memory device, determining a usage metric based on dividing the health metric by the time metric, retrieving a threshold value associated with the usage metric from one or more of the plurality of registers, transmitting an over-usage indication to a host device responsive to the usage metric satisfying the threshold value, and terminating one or more applications at the apparatus based on: the usage metric satisfying the threshold value which is functional language and there is no recitation of sufficient structure to perform the retrieving, determining, retrieving, transmitting, and terminating.
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.
A review of the specification shows the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations:
Regarding the apparatus recited in the claim above:
With reference to paragraph [0009], the specification recites “The system 100 may include one or more devices, apparatuses, and/or components for performing operations described herein. For example, the system 100 may include a host system 105 and a memory system 110.”
Further, with reference to paragraph [0010], the specification recites “The host system 105 may include a host processor 150. The host processor 150 may include one or more processors configured to execute instructions and store data in the memory system 110.”
Since claim 21 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and applicant’s specification describes with reference to the recited apparatus that it may include one or more processors configured to execute instructions and store data in a memory, the apparatus is being interpreted as any combination of software (i.e., a set of instructions, software modules, one or more programs) and hardware or hardware circuits capable of performing the claimed functions.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's
interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding
structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the
drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 10-13, 16-19, 21-22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Som et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0257460 A1), hereinafter referred to as Som, in view of Bailey et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,547,520 B1), hereinafter referred to as Bailey, in further view of Jain et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0276951 A1), hereinafter referred to as Jain.
Regarding Claim 1, Som teaches:
A memory device, comprising: one or more components configured to:
retrieve a health metric and a time metric from one or more of a plurality of registers of the memory device; ([0099]; regarding, “Usage evaluation involves applying one or usage metrics to a received command in order to determine whether a command reflects undesirable use…”; [0102]; regarding, “Behavior evaluation involves applying one or behavior metrics to a received command in order to determine whether a command reflects an undesirable pattern of behavior during operation of system 600.”; [0075]; regarding, “Some of registers 636 may be used to store metric reference values 639 associated with metrics defined for usage evaluation circuit 658 and behavior evaluation circuit 660.”);
store the usage metric in one or more of the plurality of registers; ([0075]; “Some of registers 636 may be used to store metric reference values 639 associated with metrics defined for usage evaluation circuit 658 and behavior evaluation circuit 660.”);
retrieve a threshold value, associated with the usage metric, from one or more of the plurality of registers; ([0075]; regarding, “Metric parameter reference values may be defined in terms of usage thresholds, such as, without limitation: maximum numbers of flash memory accesses allowed within specified periods of time; a minimum period of time required between two or more successive flash memory accesses; and other quantity and temporal access thresholds.”);
compare the usage metric with the threshold value, wherein the usage metric satisfying the threshold value is indicative of over-usage of the memory device; ([0108]; regarding, “the usage threshold metric may be defined as a function of access statistics maintained in access statistics store 637, and in particular as a function of a running count of accesses over a specified period of time.”);
cause an over-usage indication to be provided to a host device responsive to the usage metric satisfying the threshold value; ([0059]; regarding, “The bit flag may be set to enforce immutability of the data in the registers. For example, if the bit flag is set, modification of the registers may be prevented until after the management controller is reset.”; [0084]; regarding, “The BMC 620 then locks the table, so that the attached ROM devices may only accept acceptable commands from either the host CPU 602 or the BMC 620.”).
Som fails to explicitly disclose but Bailey teaches:
determine a usage metric based on dividing the health metric by the time metric; (Col. 7, lines 22-32; regarding, “…load balancer 70 may determine actual time Ta and the time of dispatch Ts (or time of start of execution if different) for such an application, as well as the memory heap usage Ma at Ta by that application. Ta, Ts, and Ma may be used by load balancer 70 to forecast the total memory usage MT by the application at point of completion of its execution by employing the algorithm: MT=Ma*D/(Ta−Ts)”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Som with the teachings of Bailey. Doing so may improve data stored in registers by updating register entries based on monitoring memory usage and execution duration (Bailey, Col. 8, lines 20-25).
Som in view of Bailey fails to explicitly disclose but Jain teaches:
and terminate one or more applications at the memory device based on: the usage metric satisfying the threshold value, causing the over-usage indication to be provided to the host device, or both. ([0022]; regarding, “if an application exceeds its specified resource usage, then enforcement may involve (a) sending an email/SMS notification or alert to the developer or cloud operator, (b) logging an error in a database, (c) terminating the running application instances…”; [0027]; regarding, “…check for violations of runtime properties and characteristics from specification (e.g., global network usage of an application exceeding a specified threshold).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Som and Bailey with the teachings of Jain. Doing so allows implementation of monitoring techniques that safeguard and may improve accuracy of results (Jain, [0049]).
Regarding Claim 2, Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain teaches the device of claim 1 as cited above. Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain further teaches:
wherein the over-usage indication indicates: at least one of the health metric or the usage metric, and a granularity identifier indicating a memory segment associated with the at least one of the health metric or the usage metric. (Som, [0108]; regarding, “Different reference parameters may be defined for different types of memory accesses, and may be defined differently based upon particular address ranges within flash ROM 642. Any running count statistics maintained in access statistics store 637 may be periodically reset or otherwise recalibrated according to a desired schedule and depending upon the metric definitions for which the count statistics are used.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain teaches the device of claim 1 as cited above. Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain further teaches:
wherein the one or more components, to compare the usage metric with the threshold value, are configured to:
compare the usage metric with the threshold value responsive to an update of the usage metric. (Som, [0087]; regarding, “Access statistics updating circuit 657 functions to store statistics relating to the received command in statistics block 641… Such additional statistical information may then be available to be utilized as part of the usage and behavior metrics”; [0108]; regarding, “a usage metric permitting only a specified, limited number of flash memory accesses to occur within a specified time period.”).
Regarding Claim 7, Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain teaches the device of claim 1 as cited above. Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain further teaches:
wherein the one or more components are further configured to retrieve a comparison timing setting from one or more of the plurality of registers, and wherein the one or more components, to compare the usage metric with the threshold value, are configured to compare the usage metric with the threshold value in accordance with a timing indicated by the comparison timing setting. (Som, [0108]; regarding, “Any running count statistics maintained in access statistics store 637 may be periodically reset or otherwise recalibrated according to a desired schedule and depending upon the metric definitions for which the count statistics are used.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain teaches the device of claim 7 as cited above. Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain further teaches:
wherein the one or more components are further configured to:
receive an indication from the host device of the comparison timing setting. (Som, [0084]; regarding, “The BMC 620 then locks the table, so that the attached ROM devices may only accept acceptable commands from either the host CPU 602 or the BMC 620.”; [0108]; regarding, “Any running count statistics maintained in access statistics store 637 may be periodically reset or otherwise recalibrated according to a desired schedule and depending upon the metric definitions for which the count statistics are used.”).
Regarding Claim 9, Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain teaches the device of claim 1 as cited above. Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain further teaches:
wherein the one or more components, to cause the over-usage indication to be provided to the host device, are configured to:
cause the over-usage indication to be provided to the host device responsive to a combined usage metric, that is a combination of the usage metric and an additional usage metric, satisfying the threshold value. (Som, [0034]; regarding, “The BMC 120 may include registers 136 that may be used to store a list of commands 138. The list of commands 138 may include commands that a memory controller such as flash memory controller 140”; [0059]; regarding, “The bit flag may be set to enforce immutability of the data in the registers. For example, if the bit flag is set, modification of the registers may be prevented until after the management controller is reset.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain teaches the device of claim 9 as cited above. Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain further teaches:
wherein the combination of the usage metric and the additional usage metric scales at least one of the usage metric or the additional usage metric by a scaling factor. (Bailey, Col. 9, lines 18-25; regarding, “replacing the forecasted memory usage with the actual memory usage or by performing some averaging of the forecasted memory usage and the actual memory usage (e.g., keeping track (in the register 74) of the number of times an application of that particular application type has been executed by virtual machine 80 and using this metric as a scaling factor in the averaging operation). In an example: M (new)=(x*M (old)+Ma)/(x+1)”).
Regarding Claim 11, Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain teaches the device of claim 1 as cited above. Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain further teaches:
wherein the one or more components, to cause the over-usage indication to be provided to the host device, are configured to:
cause the over-usage indication to be provided to the host device responsive to the usage metric satisfying the threshold value and an additional usage metric satisfying an additional threshold value. (Som, [0034]; regarding, “The BMC 120 may include registers 136 that may be used to store a list of commands 138. The list of commands 138 may include commands that a memory controller such as flash memory controller 140”; [0059]; regarding, “The bit flag may be set to enforce immutability of the data in the registers. For example, if the bit flag is set, modification of the registers may be prevented until after the management controller is reset.”).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 under the same grounds of rejection as claims 1 and 2 respectively.
Regarding Claim 16, Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain teaches the method of claim 12 as cited above. Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain further teaches:
further comprising storing the usage metric in one or more of the plurality of registers, wherein the usage metric is stored in a first register group of the plurality of registers, (Som, [0075]; regarding, “Some of registers 636 may be used to store metric reference values 639 associated with metrics defined for usage evaluation circuit 658 and behavior evaluation circuit 660.”);
and the threshold value is retrieved from a second register group of the plurality of registers. ([0108]; regarding, “the usage threshold metric may be defined as a function of access statistics maintained in access statistics store 637”).
Regarding Claim 17, Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain teaches the method of claim 12 as cited above. Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain further teaches:
wherein the usage metric is for at least one of a memory type of the memory device, a partition of the memory device, a logic unit of the memory device, or a system level of the memory device. (Som, [0108]; regarding, “Different reference parameters may be defined for different types of memory accesses, and may be defined differently based upon particular address ranges within flash ROM 642. Any running count statistics maintained in access statistics store 637 may be periodically reset or otherwise recalibrated according to a desired schedule and depending upon the metric definitions for which the count statistics are used.”).
Regarding Claim 18, Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain teaches the method of claim 12 as cited above. Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain further teaches:
wherein causing the over-usage indication to be provided to the host device comprises setting a flag in one or more of the plurality of registers. (Som, [0059]; regarding, “The bit flag may be set to enforce immutability of the data in the registers. For example, if the bit flag is set, modification of the registers may be prevented until after the management controller is reset.”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 under the same grounds of rejection as claim 9 respectively.
Regarding Claim 21, Som teaches:
An apparatus, comprising:
means for retrieving a health metric and a time metric from one or more of a plurality of registers of a memory device, ([0099]; regarding, “Usage evaluation involves applying one or usage metrics to a received command in order to determine whether a command reflects undesirable use…”; [0102]; regarding, “Behavior evaluation involves applying one or behavior metrics to a received command in order to determine whether a command reflects an undesirable pattern of behavior during operation of system 600.”; [0075]; regarding, “Some of registers 636 may be used to store metric reference values 639 associated with metrics defined for usage evaluation circuit 658 and behavior evaluation circuit 660.”);
wherein the health metric relates to a current status of the memory device and the time metric relates to a duration of operation of the memory device since a previous event; ([0087]; regarding, “Various access command statistics may be recorded, including, without limitation, running counts of issuances of different access command types, along with their attributes and parameters.”; [0106]; regarding, “Using historical, temporal, and/or quantitative statistics, such as those maintained in access statistics store 637, an access behavior metric may take into account the relationship of one command to one or more previous commands.”);
means for retrieving a threshold value associated with the usage metric from one or more of the plurality of registers, wherein the threshold value relates to an acceptable limit for the usage metric; ([0108]; regarding, “For example, a usage metric permitting only a specified, limited number of flash memory accesses to occur within a specified time period… the usage threshold metric may be defined as a function of access statistics maintained in access statistics store 637, and in particular as a function of a running count of accesses over a specified period of time.”)
means for transmitting an over-usage indication to a host device responsive to the usage metric satisfying the threshold value. ([0059]; regarding, “The bit flag may be set to enforce immutability of the data in the registers. For example, if the bit flag is set, modification of the registers may be prevented until after the management controller is reset.”; [0084]; regarding, “The BMC 620 then locks the table, so that the attached ROM devices may only accept acceptable commands from either the host CPU 602 or the BMC 620.”).
Som fails to explicitly disclose but Bailey teaches:
means for determining a usage metric based on dividing the health metric by the time metric, wherein the usage metric relates to a usage intensity of the memory device; (Col. 7, lines 22-32; regarding, “…load balancer 70 may determine actual time Ta and the time of dispatch Ts (or time of start of execution if different) for such an application, as well as the memory heap usage Ma at Ta by that application. Ta, Ts, and Ma may be used by load balancer 70 to forecast the total memory usage MT by the application at point of completion of its execution by employing the algorithm: MT=Ma*D/(Ta−Ts)”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Som with the teachings of Bailey. Doing so may improve data stored in registers by updating register entries based on monitoring memory usage and execution duration (Bailey, Col. 8, lines 20-25).
Som in view of Bailey fails to explicitly disclose but Jain teaches:
and means for terminating one or more applications at the apparatus based on: the usage metric satisfying the threshold value, causing the over-usage indication to be provided to the host device, or both. ([0022]; regarding, “if an application exceeds its specified resource usage, then enforcement may involve (a) sending an email/SMS notification or alert to the developer or cloud operator, (b) logging an error in a database, (c) terminating the running application instances…”; [0027]; regarding, “…check for violations of runtime properties and characteristics from specification (e.g., global network usage of an application exceeding a specified threshold).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Som and Bailey with the teachings of Jain. Doing so allows implementation of monitoring techniques that safeguard and may improve accuracy of results (Jain, [0049]).
Claims 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 under the same grounds of rejection claims 2 and 17 respectively.
Claims 3-5, 14-15, 20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Som et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0257460 A1), hereinafter referred to as Som, in view of Bailey et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,547,520 B1), hereinafter referred to as Bailey, in further view of Jain et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0276951 A1), hereinafter referred to as Jain, in further view of Akavaram et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0103499 A1), hereinafter referred to as Akavaram.
Regarding Claim 3, Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain teaches the device of claim 1 as cited above. Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain fail to explicitly disclose but Akavaram teaches:
wherein the health metric relates to at least one of a bad block count, a program and erase cycle count, or a spare blocks consumed count. ([0098]; regarding, “the shared write buffer endurance used 574 indicates a program cycle time of the shared write buffer 182, a count of write commands to, or program/erase (P/E) cycles performed at, the shared write buffer 182, or a combination thereof.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Som, Bailey, and Jain with the teachings of Akavaram. Doing so can prolong the life span of a shared memory (Akavaram, [0025]).
Regarding Claim 4, Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain teaches the device of claim 1 as cited above. Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain fail to explicitly disclose but Akavaram teaches:
wherein the time metric relates to at least one of an elapsed lifetime since device manufacture or a device on time since manufacture. ([0042]; regarding, “the performance metric 174 corresponds to an endurance used of the shared write buffer 182 (e.g., an estimated reduction of cell endurance, or increase in the percentage of estimated lifetime that has been used”).
Regarding Claim 5, Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain teaches the device of claim 1 as cited above. Som in view of Bailey in further view of Jain fail to explicitly disclose but Akavaram teaches:
wherein the one or more components are further configured to:
receive an indication from the host device of the threshold value. ([0075]; regarding, “The device controller 162, in response to receiving the write command 152A and determining that the write buffer mode 170 is enabled, configures the performance threshold register 172 to set the logical unit capacity threshold 272 (e.g., a predetermined threshold value)”).
Claims 14-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 under the same grounds of rejection as claims 3-5 respectively.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 under the same grounds of rejection as claims 3-4 respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/23/2026 have been considered.
Regarding the 112(f) interpretation, the apparatus is being interpreted as any combination of software (i.e., a set of instructions, software modules, one or more programs) and hardware or hardware circuits capable of performing the claimed functions as referenced above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejection on independent Claim 1,
and similarly Claims 12 and 21, have been considered and a new grounds of rejection has been
provided addressing the newly claimed matter. Please see the above detailed rejection of the
newly recited subject matter.
Newly cited reference Bailey teaches determining a usage metric based on dividing the health metric by the time metric.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEW GUSTAFSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5273. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571) 272-3655. 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.
/M.D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2113
/BRYCE P BONZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights