DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 21-40 are pending for examination. Claims 1-20 were cancelled in a preliminary amendment filed 12/30/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 08/09/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality:
¶ 0001: Add the corresponding patent number associated with Application No. 17/932,916.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 31, 37, and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 21, 31, and 37: Change to “…a redundant array of independent disks (RAID)…”
Claim 37: Change to “…log-write portions…”
Claim 37: Change to “…store a journal…”
Claim 38: Change to “…restore lost data from a failure of an individual drive…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
…a drive utilization system…configured to: identify…log-writing…and storing…
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.
Claim 24 is 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.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the individual drive" in page 2. It is unclear as to which individual drive (“…each individual drive of the drives…” in Claim 23) is being referred to.
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 21-28, 31-35, and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillingim et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 9,116,823 B2), hereinafter “Fillingim,” and further in view of Flynn et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 7,836,226 B2), hereinafter “Flynn.” Fillingim and Flynn were cited in the IDS filed 08/09/2024.
With regards to Claim 21, Fillingim teaches:
a method for writing to “elements” (Fig. 1; col. 5, lines 8-22; and col. 7, lines 24-36.) in a redundant array of disks (RAID) storage system (col. 13, lines 48-53.), the method comprising:
identifying data for storage on the “elements” in the RAID storage system, wherein the data is from logical storage volumes (Fig. 1; col. 7, lines 46-67; and col. 8, lines 1-8.);
mapping portions of the data corresponding to individual volumes of the logical storage volumes to individual “elements” of the “elements” in the RAID storage system (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 3-26; col. 12, lines 23-41; Fig. 9; and col. 45, lines 36-52.); and
striping the data across the “elements” in the RAID storage system with the portions of the data being stored to the individual “elements” in accordance with the mapping (Fig. 9; col. 44, lines 51-67; col. 45, lines 1-23; and col. 45, lines 36-52.).
Fillingim does not explicitly teach:
drives.
However, Flynn teaches:
drives (Fig. 1 and col. 8, lines 41-53.).
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 Fillingim with the use of hard disk drives in a RAID as taught by Flynn because a simple substitution of one known element (a solid-state storage medium comprising one or more arrays of solid-state storage elements - Fillingim: Fig. 1; and Fillingim: col. 7, lines 24-45) for another (hard disk drives in a RAID) can be performed to obtain predictable results (providing known means for RAID storage).
With regards to Claim 22, Fillingim in view of Flynn teaches the method of Claim 21 as referenced above. Fillingim in view of Flynn further teaches:
wherein the mapping includes:
generating a log for each of the logical storage volumes, wherein the log maps write locations on an individual drive of the drives in the RAID storage system to corresponding addresses within a logical storage volume of the individual volumes stored on the individual drive (Fillingim: Fig. 1; Fillingim: col. 6, lines 3-26; Fillingim: col. 6, lines 49-61; Fillingim: Fig. 3; and Fillingim: col. 10, lines 3-25; regarding, e.g., bitmap metadata and/or contextual metadata [log] including, in part, logical identifier indicators associated with data packets.).
With regards to Claim 23, Fillingim in view of Flynn teaches the method of Claim 21 as referenced above. Fillingim in view of Flynn further teaches:
writing parity data for the portions to the drives in the RAID storage system, wherein components of the parity data stored on each individual drive of the drives in the RAID storage system correspond to those of the portions of the data stored on others of the drives in the RAID storage system (Fillingim: Fig. 1; Fillingim: col. 8, lines 24-49; Fillingim: col. 12, lines 8-15; Fillingim: col. 17, lines 55-67; and Fillingim: col. 18, lines 1-15.).
With regards to Claim 24, Fillingim in view of Flynn teaches the method of Claim 23 as referenced above. Fillingim in view of Flynn further teaches:
upon failure of an individual drive of the drives in the RAID storage system, restoring lost data from the individual drive using the components of the parity data stored on other drives in the RAID storage system (Fillingim: Fig. 1 and Fillingim: col. 8, lines 24-49.).
With regards to Claim 25, Fillingim in view of Flynn teaches the method of Claim 21 as referenced above. Fillingim in view of Flynn further teaches:
obtaining, from the RAID storage system, an initial deterministic allocation of the data to the drives in the RAID storage system (Fillingim: Fig. 1; Fillingim: Fig. 2; and Fillingim: col. 9, lines 44-57; regarding, e.g., sequence timestamps.); and
journaling a correspondence between the mapping and the initial deterministic allocation (Fillingim: Fig. 3 and Fillingim: col. 10, lines 3-25; regarding, e.g., providing header data per data packet that includes the sequence timestamp contextual metadata.).
With regards to Claim 26, Fillingim in view of Flynn teaches the method of Claim 25 as referenced above. Fillingim in view of Flynn further teaches:
storing respective journal portions created by the journaling to a same drive of the drives in the RAID storage system that stores a portion of the data to which a respective journal portion corresponds (Fillingim: Fig. 3 and Fillingim: col. 10, lines 3-25.).
With regards to Claim 27, Fillingim in view of Flynn teaches the method of Claim 21 as referenced above. Fillingim in view of Flynn further teaches:
obtaining a read request for volume data of a volume of the logical storage volumes (Fillingim: Fig. 11; Fillingim: col. 46, lines 58-67; and Fillingim: col. 47, lines 1-16.);
determining from the mapping which drive of the drives in the RAID storage system stores the volume (Fillingim: Fig. 11; Fillingim: col. 46, lines 58-67; and Fillingim: col. 47, lines 1-16.); and
reading the volume data from the drive (Fillingim: Fig. 11; Fillingim: col. 46, lines 58-67; and Fillingim: col. 47, lines 1-16.).
With regards to Claim 28, Fillingim in view of Flynn teaches the method of Claim 27 as referenced above. Fillingim in view of Flynn further teaches:
determining the drive has failed (Fillingim: Fig. 11; Fillingim: col. 46, lines 58-67; Fillingim: col. 47, lines 1-16; Fillingim: Fig. 13; and Fillingim: col. 48, lines 28-66.);
wherein reading the volume data from the drive comprises restoring the volume data from parity information stored to other drives of the drives in the RAID storage system (Fillingim: Fig. 13; and Fillingim: col. 48, lines 28-66.).
With regards to Claim 31, Fillingim teaches:
an apparatus for writing to “elements” (Fig. 1; col. 5, lines 8-22; and col. 7, lines 24-36.) in a redundant array of disks (RAID) storage system (col. 13, lines 48-53.), the apparatus comprising:
one or more computer readable storage media (Fig. 1; col. 5, lines 53-63; and col. 53, lines 30-63.);
a processing system operatively coupled with the one or more computer readable storage media (Fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 53-63.); and
program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media that, when read and executed by the processing system, direct the apparatus (Fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 53-63.) to:
identify data for storage on the “elements” in the RAID storage system, wherein the data is from logical storage volumes (Fig. 1; col. 7, lines 46-67; and col. 8, lines 1-8.);
generate a map indicating portions of the data corresponding to individual volumes of the logical storage volumes to individual “elements” of the “elements” in the RAID storage system (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 3-26; col. 12, lines 23-41; Fig. 9; and col. 45, lines 36-52.); and
write the portions of the data to the individual “elements” defined by the map (Fig. 9; col. 44, lines 51-67; col. 45, lines 1-23; and col. 45, lines 36-52.).
Fillingim does not explicitly teach:
drives.
However, Flynn teaches:
drives (Fig. 1 and col. 8, lines 41-53.).
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 Fillingim with the use of hard disk drives in a RAID as taught by Flynn because a simple substitution of one known element (a solid-state storage medium comprising one or more arrays of solid-state storage elements - Fillingim: Fig. 1; and Fillingim: col. 7, lines 24-45) for another (hard disk drives in a RAID) can be performed to obtain predictable results (providing known means for RAID storage).
With regards to Claim 32, Fillingim in view of Flynn teaches the apparatus of Claim 31 as referenced above. Fillingim in view of Flynn further teaches:
wherein the map includes write locations on an individual drive of the drives in the RAID storage system to corresponding addresses within a logical storage volume of the individual volumes stored on the individual drive (Fillingim: Fig. 1; Fillingim: col. 6, lines 3-26; Fillingim: col. 6, lines 49-61; Fillingim: Fig. 3; and Fillingim: col. 10, lines 3-25; regarding, e.g., bitmap metadata and/or contextual metadata including, in part, logical identifier indicators associated with data packets.).
With regards to Claim 33, Fillingim in view of Flynn teaches the apparatus of Claim 31 as referenced above. Fillingim in view of Flynn further teaches:
wherein the RAID storage system calculates parity data horizontally across the drives in the RAID storage system such that components of the parity data stored on each individual drive of the drives in the RAID storage system correspond to those of the portions of the data stored on others of the drives in the RAID storage system (Fillingim: Fig. 6I; Fillingim: col. 31, lines 53-67; and Fillingim: col. 32, lines 1-10.).
With regards to Claim 34, Fillingim in view of Flynn teaches the apparatus of Claim 31 as referenced above. Fillingim in view of Flynn further teaches:
wherein the program instructions direct the apparatus to:
obtain, from a controller of the RAID storage system (Fillingim: Fig. 1 and Fillingim: col. 5, lines 1-7.), an initial deterministic allocation of the data to the drives in the RAID storage system (Fillingim: Fig. 1; Fillingim: Fig. 2; and Fillingim: col. 9, lines 44-57; regarding, e.g., sequence timestamps.);
generate a journal indicating a correspondence between the map and the initial deterministic allocation (Fillingim: Fig. 3 and Fillingim: col. 10, lines 3-25; regarding, e.g., providing header data per data packet that includes the sequence timestamp contextual metadata.); and
store journal portions of the journal to a same drive of the drives in the RAID storage system that stores a portion of the data to which a respective journal portion corresponds (Fillingim: Fig. 3 and Fillingim: col. 10, lines 3-25.).
With regards to Claim 35, Fillingim in view of Flynn teaches the apparatus of Claim 31 as referenced above. Fillingim in view of Flynn further teaches:
obtain a read request for volume data of a volume of the logical storage volumes (Fillingim: Fig. 11; Fillingim: col. 46, lines 58-67; and Fillingim: col. 47, lines 1-16.);
determine from the map which drive of the drives in the RAID storage system stores the volume (Fillingim: Fig. 11; Fillingim: col. 46, lines 58-67; and Fillingim: col. 47, lines 1-16.); and
read the volume data from the drive (Fillingim: Fig. 11; Fillingim: col. 46, lines 58-67; and Fillingim: col. 47, lines 1-16.).
With regards to Claim 37, Fillingim teaches:
a system for writing data to “elements” (Fig. 1; col. 5, lines 8-22; and col. 7, lines 24-36.) in a redundant array of disks (RAID) storage system (col. 13, lines 48-53.), the system comprising:
the RAID storage system including a RAID controller (Fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 1-7.) and physical “elements;” (Fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 8-22.) and
a drive utilization system communicatively coupled to the RAID controller (Fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 1-7; regarding, e.g., storage module 130.), wherein the drive utilization system is configured to:
identify data for storage on the physical “elements,” wherein the data is from logical storage volumes (Fig. 1; col. 7, lines 46-67; and col. 8, lines 1-8.);
log-writing portions of the data corresponding to individual volumes of the logical storage volumes to individual “elements” of the “elements” in the RAID storage system (Fig. 1; col. 6, lines 3-26; col. 6, lines 49-61; Fig. 3; and col. 10, lines 3-25; regarding, e.g., writing, along with data for storage, bitmap metadata and/or contextual metadata [log-writing] including, in part, logical identifier indicators associated with data packets.); and
storing a journal of the log-writing to the physical “elements.” (Fig. 3 and col. 10, lines 3-25; regarding, e.g., providing and storing header data per data packet that includes the sequence timestamp contextual metadata.)
Fillingim does not explicitly teach:
drives.
However, Flynn teaches:
drives (Fig. 1 and col. 8, lines 41-53.).
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 Fillingim with the use of hard disk drives in a RAID as taught by Flynn because a simple substitution of one known element (a solid-state storage medium comprising one or more arrays of solid-state storage elements - Fillingim: Fig. 1; and Fillingim: col. 7, lines 24-45) for another (hard disk drives in a RAID) can be performed to obtain predictable results (providing known means for RAID storage).
With regards to Claim 38, Fillingim in view of Flynn teaches the system of Claim 37 as referenced above. Fillingim in view of Flynn further teaches:
the RAID controller configured to restore lost data from failure of an individual drive of the physical drives using parity data stored on other drives of the physical drives (Fillingim: Fig. 1 and Fillingim: col. 8, lines 24-49.).
With regards to Claim 39, Fillingim in view of Flynn teaches the system of Claim 37 as referenced above. Fillingim in view of Flynn further teaches:
the RAID controller configured to determine an initial deterministic allocation of the data to the physical drives (Fillingim: Fig. 1; Fillingim: col. 5, lines 1-7; Fillingim: Fig. 2; and Fillingim: col. 9, lines 44-57; regarding, e.g., sequence timestamps.); and
the drive utilization system configured to receive the initial deterministic allocation from the RAID controller and include in the journal a correspondence between the log-writing and the initial deterministic allocation (Fillingim: Fig. 3 and Fillingim: col. 10, lines 3-25; regarding, e.g., providing header data per data packet that includes the sequence timestamp contextual metadata.).
Claims 29, 30, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillingim, further in view of Flynn, and further in view of Goel et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 8,417,987 B1), hereinafter “Goel.”
With regards to Claim 29, Fillingim in view of Flynn teaches the method of Claim 27 as referenced above. Fillingim in view of Flynn does not explicitly teach:
wherein, when reading the volume data from the drive, drive failure exists at a number of the drives in the RAID storage system greater than what is allowed by a RAID scheme employed by the RAID storage system in accordance with the method of Claim 27.
However, Goel teaches:
wherein, when reading the volume data from the drive, drive failure exists at a number of the drives in the RAID storage system greater than what is allowed by a RAID scheme employed by the RAID storage system (Fig. 6; col. 13, lines 65-67; col. 14, lines 1-26; Fig. 7; col. 17, lines 49-67; and col. 18, lines 1-4.).
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 Fillingim in view of Flynn with the concept of obtaining a copy of data from another source when a RAID fault tolerance level is exceeded, all as taught by Goel, because the external data copy can be provided to correct unrecoverable errors without requiring drastic recovery actions that disrupt client access processing (Goel: col. 20, lines 50-57).
With regards to Claim 30, Fillingim in view of Flynn teaches the method of Claim 21 as referenced above. Fillingim in view of Flynn does not explicitly teach:
when drive failure exists at a number of the drives in the RAID storage system greater than what is allowed by a RAID scheme employed by the RAID storage system, recovering lost data from failed drives of the drives in the RAID storage system from a storage location other than the RAID storage system in accordance with the method of Claim 21.
However, Goel teaches:
when drive failure exists at a number of the drives in the RAID storage system greater than what is allowed by a RAID scheme employed by the RAID storage system, recovering lost data from failed drives of the drives in the RAID storage system from a storage location other than the RAID storage system (Fig. 6; col. 13, lines 65-67; col. 14, lines 1-26; Fig. 7; col. 17, lines 49-67; and col. 18, lines 1-4.).
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 Fillingim in view of Flynn with the concept of obtaining a copy of data from another source when a RAID fault tolerance level is exceeded, all as taught by Goel, because the external data copy can be provided to correct unrecoverable errors without requiring drastic recovery actions that disrupt client access processing (Goel: col. 20, lines 50-57).
With regards to Claim 36, Fillingim in view of Flynn teaches the apparatus of Claim 35 as referenced above. Fillingim in view of Flynn does not explicitly teach:
wherein, when the volume data is read from the drive, drive failure exists at a number of the drives in the RAID storage system greater than what is allowed by a RAID scheme employed by the RAID storage system in accordance with the apparatus of Claim 35.
However, Goel teaches:
wherein, when the volume data is read from the drive, drive failure exists at a number of the drives in the RAID storage system greater than what is allowed by a RAID scheme employed by the RAID storage system (Fig. 6; col. 13, lines 65-67; col. 14, lines 1-26; Fig. 7; col. 17, lines 49-67; and col. 18, lines 1-4.).
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 Fillingim in view of Flynn with the concept of obtaining a copy of data from another source when a RAID fault tolerance level is exceeded, all as taught by Goel, because the external data copy can be provided to correct unrecoverable errors without requiring drastic recovery actions that disrupt client access processing (Goel: col. 20, lines 50-57).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 40 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wipfel (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0052395 A1); teaching writing data atomically to one or more recording media. In one embodiment, a request is received to perform an atomic write for a set of data. Responsive to the request, the set of data is written across a plurality of storage units including storing metadata at a dedicated location within at least one of the plurality of storage units. The metadata is usable to determine whether the writing completed successfully. In some embodiments, the request is received from an application that has been assigned an address range of the plurality of storage units. In such an embodiment, the address range is accessible to the application for storing data, and the dedicated location resides outside of the address range. In one embodiment, the metadata specifies an address range where the set of data was written and a sequence number.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH KUDIRKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5pm ET.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at (571) 272-0631. 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.
/JOSEPH R KUDIRKA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114