DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on February 18, 2026 have been entered. Claims 21, 27, 29, 31, 37, 39, and 40 have been amended. Claims 22 and 32 have been cancelled. Claims 1-20 were previously cancelled. Claims 21, 23-31, and 33-40remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on February 18, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action dated November 18, 2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim 21:
Applicant argues, in page 9 of the Remarks, “With respect to amended independent claim 21, Curtin fails to disclose or suggest “obtain path data of a plurality of network devices, wherein the path data of a first network device is associated with one or more logical paths of a physical interface of the first network device with at least a second network device over a wide area network (WAN).””.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 0022 of Curtin discloses sampling (obtaining) data packets (path data) for each service, each session, and each client. Fig. 1 show client device (first network device) communicates with web server (second network device) via logical link of a network 115 as explained in paragraph 0020. Paragraph 0027 discloses capturing packets for plurality of logical links between nodes.
Applicant argues, in page 10 of the Remarks, “Curtin also fails to disclose or suggest "determine one or more health assessments for the one or more priority applications based on the path data of the first network device obtained for one or more application sessions of the one or more priority applications," as recited by amended claim 21 with emphasis added. Curtin describes that the network monitoring system detects degradation in performance of the service provided over the network based on key performance indicators (KPIs) that influence quality of the service. Curtin describes calculating KPIs for each service based on the sniffed or probed data packets for the service. Contrary to the assertion by the Office, Curtin does not describe or suggest that "KPI are determined based on link data."8=Curtin instead discloses that "various network parameters [such as link quality] affect the KPIs.9 As such, Curtin does not describe "obtain[ing] path data of a plurality of network devices" and "determin[ing] one or more health assessments for the one or more priority applications based on the path data of the first network device," as recited by amended claim 21.”.
In response, paragraph 0027 discloses capturing packets for plurality of logical links between nodes to monitor performance. As explained in paragraph 0044, KPI values are determined from the captured packets. Therefore, determining service level based on KPI values equates to determining service level based on KPI values equates to determining service level based on captured packets.
Applicant argues in pages 10 and 11 of the Remarks “In addition, Curtin fails to disclose or suggest "determine one or more priority applications from a plurality of applications based on one or more parameters of application sessions of the plurality of applications, wherein an application session of an application includes data flows of the application via the one or more logical paths between the first network device and at least the second network device over the WAN," as recited by amended claim 21. In support of the rejection of this element, the Office relied on portions of Curtin that describe "classifying services based on various parameters including QoS." Curtin, however, describes classifying services by the type of service being offered, e.g., streaming video, data, conversational video,11 and fails to disclose "determin[ing] one or more priority applications from a plurality of applications," as recited by amended claim 21 with emphasis added. Moreover, contrary to the assertion by the Office, Curtin does not describe "identifying high-priority conversational services like Skype, Facetime (priority application) and less priority streaming services like YouTube, Hulu."12 Curtin merely states as examples of classification by type of service being offered, "[O]nline video streaming may include popular services such as YouTube and Hulu. Video recording and video conferencing may include services such as Skype, FaceTime and Google Hangout,"13 without any mention of whether such services may be considered priority or less priority. As such, Curtin fails to disclose of suggest "determine one or more priority applications from a plurality of applications based on one or more parameters of application sessions of the plurality of applications," as recited by amended claim 21.”.
In response, paragraph 0028 discloses identifying plurality of services based on the captured data packets as stated “Monitoring system 100 may include one or more processors running one or more software applications that collect, correlate and/or analyze media and signaling data packets from network 115. Monitoring system 100 may incorporate protocol analyzer, session analyzer, and/or traffic analyzer functionality that provides OSI (Open Systems Interconnection) Layer 2 to Layer 7 troubleshooting by characterizing IP traffic by links, nodes, applications, service types and servers on network 115.”. Paragraph 0043 discloses classifying services based on various parameters including QoS. Paragraph 0043 also discloses identifying conversational service facetime (priority application) based on the QoS by deep-packet inspection of the captured data packets.);
Regarding claim 27:
Applicant argues, in page 13 of the Remarks “Parthasarathy does not disclose or suggest "determine the one or more health assessments for the one or more priority applications based on the path data of the first network device obtained for the one or more application sessions of the one or more priority applications during each application time period of a sequence of consecutive application time periods," as recited by amended claim 27. The Office relied on a portion of Parthasarathy that describes an interface that includes application performance icons shaded based on a scaled application performance score. Although FIG. 8 of Parthasarathy illustrates time labels along the bottom of the interface, Parthasarathy fails to describe the time labels as representing application time periods in a sequence of consecutive application time periods, as recited by amended claim 27”.
In response, Curtin teaches determine the one or more health assessments for the one or more priority applications based on the path data of the first network device obtained for the one or more application sessions of the one or more priority applications as shown in claim 21. Curtin does not teach during each application time period of a sequence of consecutive application time periods. Parthasarathy teaches during each application time period of a sequence of consecutive application time periods. Fig. 8 shows plurality of time periods in a grid for plurality of applications 830 where each row corresponds to consecutive time periods of an application and performance for each time period evaluated as explained in Col 9, lines 59-67, and Col. 10, line 1, . Col. 10, lines 4-6, discloses assessing application performance for each time period as stated “The application performance scores for each time period correspond with a column of icons in the interface of FIG. 8.”
Applicant argues, in pages 13 and 14 of the Remarks “To calculate the application performance, Parthasarathy more specifically describes that "a short-term analysis is performed on streaming data," in which "the application may be monitored for a period of time to establish a baseline of performance for the application, and/or collect a set of data over which one or more data patterns and behaviors (e.g., patterns or behaviors in the values of metrics associated with application performance and calculated periodically over the period of time) can be viewed." Parthasarathy describes that "the application may be monitored for a period of 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 60 minutes, 120 minutes, or some other period of time." Parthasarathy also discloses that "[a] first block of data collected during the monitoring but previous to the recent chunk of data is then selected, such as the most recent 15 minutes of streaming data received just prior to the recent chunk for the period of time" and that "[t]he recent chunk is compared to [a] selected block of past data. In other words, Parthasarathy discloses comparing application performance data for a most recent time period with application performance data for a past time period. Parthasarathy does not disclose or suggest determining one or more application health assessments of a priority application based on path data obtained for one or more application sessions of the priority application during each application time period of a sequence of consecutive application time periods, as recited by amended claim 27. Parthasarathy also does not disclose or suggest that "an application time period of the sequence of consecutive application time periods corresponds to a period of time during which an application server of an application in communication with the first network device provides service over one or more application sessions to a client device within a site of the network via a logical path of the one or more logical paths between the first network device and the second network device for the site over the WAN," as recited by amended claim 27”.
In response, the claim recites application monitoring over consecutive application time periods. Parthasarathy discloses each application is monitored over consecutive time periods as stated in Col. 9, lines 43-49, “The application performance icons are populated for a period of time. In the interface of FIG. 8, each vertical column of square icons corresponding to applications 830 correspond to the same time period. Hence, the four icons in column 861 represent a first time period, the icons in column 862 represent a second time period, and so forth.”.
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[ ]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21, 23-25, 31, 33-35, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Curtin et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20170126476 A1), hereinafter, Curtin.
Regarding claim 21:
Curtin teaches:
A network management system (NMS) comprising: memory; and processing circuitry in communication with the memory and configured to (Fig. 1 shows network monitoring system (NMS)):
obtain path data of a plurality of network devices, wherein the path data of a first network device is associated with one or more logical paths of a physical interface of the first network device with at least a second network device over a wide area network (WAN) (Fig. 1 shows plurality of network devices. Paragraph 0022 discloses sampling (obtaining) data packets (path data) for each service, each session, and each client. Fig. 1 show client device (first network device) communicates with web server (second network device) via logical link of a network 115 as explained in paragraph 0020. Paragraph 0027 discloses capturing packets for plurality of logical links between nodes to monitor performance as stated “In some embodiments, packet capture devices may be non-intrusively coupled to network links to capture substantially all of the packets transmitted across the links. It will be understood that, in an actual network, there may be dozens or hundreds of physical, logical or virtual connections and links between nodes. Fig. 4 show network adapter 420 (physical interface) of a node to network communication. In some cases, network monitoring system 100 may be coupled to all or a high percentage of these links”. Paragraph 0056 discloses the network 115 can be a WAN.);
determine one or more priority applications from a plurality of applications based on one or more parameters of application sessions of the plurality of applications, wherein an application session of an application includes data flows of the application via the one or more logical paths between the first network device and at least the second network device over the WAN (paragraph 0028 discloses identifying plurality of services (plurality of applications) based on the captured data packets as stated “Monitoring system 100 may include one or more processors running one or more software applications that collect, correlate and/or analyze media and signaling data packets from network 115. Monitoring system 100 may incorporate protocol analyzer, session analyzer, and/or traffic analyzer functionality that provides OSI (Open Systems Interconnection) Layer 2 to Layer 7 troubleshooting by characterizing IP traffic by links, nodes, applications, service types and servers on network 115.”. Paragraph 0043 discloses classifying services based on various parameters including QoS. Paragraph 0043 also discloses identifying conversational service facetime (priority application) based on the QoS by deep-packet inspection of the captured data packets.);
determine one or more health assessments for the one or more priority applications based on the path data the first network device obtained for one or more application sessions of the one or more priority applications (paragraph 0045 discloses determining KPI for each of the identified services including high-priority services. Paragraph 0044 discloses KPI are determined based on link data. Paragraph 0046 discloses calculating service level (health assessment) based on KPIs as stated “According to an embodiment of the present invention, at step 310, monitoring engine 210 is preferably configured to characterize service levels based on the KPI values calculated in step 308”.);
determine at least one failure state of at least one application of the one or more priority applications based on the one or more health assessments for the one or more priority applications (paragraph 0047 discloses service level objective breach (failure state) based on the calculated service level and preconfigured service level objective); and
based on determining the at least one failure state of the at least one application, output a notification including identification of a root cause of the at least one failure state of the at least one application (paragraph 0048 discloses identifying root cause of failed service level objective. Paragraph 0049 discloses reporting a alert with root cause).
As to claim 23, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated. Curtin teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as shown above.
Curtin further teaches wherein to determine the one or more priority applications, the processing circuitry is configured to: determine the one or more parameters of the application sessions of each application of the plurality of applications; determine an application index or application score for each application of the plurality of applications based on the one or more parameters of the application sessions; and determine the one or more priority applications as the one or more applications of the plurality of applications having application indexes or application scores indicative of a higher priority than other applications of the plurality of applications (paragraph 0043 discloses classifying services based on QoS. Paragraph 0043 also discloses identifying high-priority conversational services like Skype, Facetime (priority application) and less priority streaming services like YouTube, Hulu. QoS values of respective applications serves as the index for classifying priority of the respective applications).
As to claim 24, the rejection of claim 23 is incorporated. Curtin teaches all the limitations of claim 23 as shown above.
Curtin further teaches wherein the one or more parameters of the application sessions of the application of the plurality of applications comprise one or more of a count of the application sessions of the application, a duration of the application sessions of the application, a number of unique clients using the application, a spread of usage of the application, or an amount of bandwidth consumed by the application sessions of the application (paragraph 0044 discloses KPI includes throughput measurement (amount of bandwidth consumed) ).
As to claim 25, the rejection of claim 23 is incorporated. Curtin teaches all the limitations of claim 23 as shown above.
Curtin further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: assign a weight to each parameter of the one or more parameters; and determine the application index or the application score for each application of the plurality of applications based on values of the one or more parameters of the application sessions and the weight assigned to each parameter of the one or more parameters (paragraph 0043 discloses classifying services based on QoS. Important to note, the claim does not recite plurality of parameters. Rather, it recites one or more parameters which can interpreted as a single parameter. Therefore, plurality of applications can be classified based on the respective QoS values as index assuming the weight is one).
Regarding claim 31:
Claim 31 is directed towards a method performed by the network management system of claim 21. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 33 is directed towards a method performed by the network management system of claim 23. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 34 is directed towards a method performed by the network management system of claim 24. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 35 is directed towards a method performed by the network management system of claim 25. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 40:
Claim 31 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform the method of claim 31. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
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 26 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtin in view of Hwang et al. (US Patent No. US 9703841 B1), hereinafter, Hwang.
As to claim 26, the rejection of claim 23 is incorporated. Curtin teaches all the limitations of claim 23 as shown above.
Curtin does not teach wherein the application index or the application score for each application of the plurality of applications ranges between 0 and 1, wherein a value of 0 indicates a low priority application and a value of 1 indicates a high priority application, and wherein the one or more priority applications comprise one or more high priority applications.
Hwang teaches wherein the application index or the application score for each application of the plurality of applications ranges between 0 and 1, wherein a value of 0 indicates a low priority application and a value of 1 indicates a high priority application, and wherein the one or more priority applications comprise one or more high priority applications (Fig. 4, step 404, discloses normalizing importance scores plurality of applications as stated in Col. 10, lines 25-36. See the table at Col. 8, lines 35-46, shows the normalize score range between 0 and 1 where higher normalized score corresponds to higher importance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Curtin to incorporate the teaching of Hwang about discloses normalizing importance scores plurality of applications. One would be motivated to do that to identify important application more conveniently using a common scale (see at least the Col. 10, lines 25-36 of Hwang).
Claim 36 is directed towards a method performed by the network management system of claim 26. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curtin in view of Parthasarathy et al. (US Patent No. US 10819593 B1), hereinafter, Parthasarathy.
As to claim 27, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated. Curtin teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as shown above.
Curtin further teaches wherein to determine the one or more health assessments, the processing circuitry is configured to determine the one or more health assessments for the one or more priority applications based on the path data of the first network device obtained for the one or more application sessions of the one or more priority applications (see claim 21 rejection as shown above).
Curtin does not teach during each application time period of a sequence of consecutive application time periods, wherein an application time period of the sequence of consecutive application time periods corresponds to a period of time during which an application server of an application in communication with the first network device provides service over one or more application sessions of the application to a client device within a site of the network via a logical path of the one or more logical paths between the first network device and the second network device for the site over the WAN.
Parthasarathy teaches during each application time period of a sequence of consecutive application time periods, wherein an application time period of the sequence of consecutive application time periods corresponds to a period of time during which an application server of an application in communication with the first network device provides service over one or more application sessions of the application to a client device within a site of the network via a logical path of the one or more logical paths between the first network device and the second network device for the site over the WAN (Fig. 8 shows plurality of time periods (sequence of consecutive application time periods) in a grid for plurality of applications 830 where each row corresponds to consecutive time periods of an application and performance for each time period evaluated as stated in Col 9, lines 59-67, and Col. 10, line 1, “In the screenshot of the interface for providing continuous verification information in FIG. 8, there are four rows of application performance icons for the four applications 830. In column 861, the uppermost three icons are a first shade of green and lowermost icon is a slightly lighter shade of green. In column 862, all four icons are the same shade of green. In column 822, the upper most icon is a slightly lighter shade of green, the two middle icons are a darker shade of green, and the lowermost icon is a shade of yellow.”. Col. 10, lines 4-6, discloses assessing application performance for each time period as stated “The application performance scores for each time period correspond with a column of icons in the interface of FIG. 8.”. Also see Col. 9, lines 43-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Curtin to incorporate the teaching of Parthasarathy about monitoring and determining the performance of applications plurality of time periods. One would be motivated to do that for more accurate visualization the performance variations of an application over time and thus providing an improved way for reporting and analyzing monitored dynamic data (see at least the Abstract and Col. 1, lines 8-20 of Parthasarathy).
As to claim 28, the rejection of claim 27 is incorporated. Curtin in view of Parthasarathy teach all the limitations of claim 27 as shown above.
Curtin further does not teach wherein to determine the at least one failure state of the at least one application of the one or more priority applications, the processing circuitry is configured to determine at least one application time period in the sequence of consecutive application time periods as the at least one failure state of the at least one application of the one or more priority applications based on the one or more health assessments for the one or more priority applications during the at least one application time period.
Parthasarathy teaches wherein to determine the at least one failure state of the at least one application of the one or more priority applications, the processing circuitry is configured to determine at least one application time period in the sequence of consecutive application time periods as the at least one failure state of the at least one application of the one or more priority applications based on the one or more health assessments for the one or more priority applications during the at least one application time period (Col. 11, lines 30-40, discloses time period 824 with red color indicating problematic performance time interval as stated “Each application performance icon has one of a plurality of shading levels, corresponding to a scaled value associated with the application for the particular time period. For example, the uppermost icon in the top row, the row associated with the “Company 1 APM” streaming performance information, in column 824 has a red color shading, the uppermost icon in the top row and column 820 has a green colored shading, the upper most icon in column 822 has a lighter color of green shading, and the uppermost icon in column 826 can have a yellow color of shading”. Col. 9, lines 11-20, discloses applying a particular threshold (one or more threshold) to the application score for classify the time period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Curtin to incorporate the teaching of Parthasarathy about indicating problematic time interval. One would be motivated to do that for more accurate visualization the performance variations of an application over time and thus providing an improved way for reporting monitored dynamic data (see at least the Abstract and Col. 1, lines 8-20 of Parthasarathy).
As to claim 29, the rejection of claim 28 is incorporated. Curtin in view of Parthasarathy teach all the limitations of claim 28 as shown above.
Curtin does not teach wherein to determine the at least one application time period as the at least one failure state of the at least one application of the one or more priority applications, the processing circuitry is configured to apply one or more thresholds to classify each application time period in the sequence of consecutive application time periods as a high- quality application time period or a low-quality application time period.
Parthasarathy teaches wherein to determine the at least one application time period as the at least one failure state of the at least one application of the one or more priority applications, the processing circuitry is configured to apply one or more thresholds to classify each application time period in the sequence of consecutive application time periods as a high- quality application time period or a low-quality application time period (Col. 11, lines 30-40, discloses classifying each period of plurality of time periods as green (high-quality application time period) or yellow (a low-quality application time period) as stated “Each application performance icon has one of a plurality of shading levels, corresponding to a scaled value associated with the application for the particular time period. For example, the uppermost icon in the top row, the row associated with the “Company 1 APM” streaming performance information, in column 824 has a red color shading, the uppermost icon in the top row and column 820 has a green colored shading, the upper most icon in column 822 has a lighter color of green shading, and the uppermost icon in column 826 can have a yellow color of shading”. Col. 9, lines 11-20, discloses applying a particular threshold (one or more threshold) to the application score for classify the time period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hsu to incorporate the teaching of Parthasarathy about classifying each period of plurality of time periods. One would be motivated to do that for more accurate visualization the performance variations of an application over time and thus providing an improved way for reporting monitored dynamic data (see at least the Abstract and Col. 1, lines 8-20 of Parthasarathy).
As to claim 30, the rejection of claim 29 is incorporated. Curtin in view of Parthasarathy teach all the limitations of claim 29 as shown above.
Curtin does not teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to classify each low-quality application time period based on an identified application-related problem classifier.
Parthasarathy teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to classify each low-quality application time period based on an identified application-related problem classifier (Fig. 8 shows a problematic time period 824 as stated in Col. 11, lines 30-36. Fig. 9 shows further classifying the problematic time period 824, when selected, in terms of causes for the problematic time period 824 as explained in Col. 12, lines 4-18. Fig. 9 also shows causes of the problematic time period 824 can be identified as the poor average response time 942 (identified application-related problem classifier). Also see Col. 9, lines 32-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Curtin to incorporate the teaching of Parthasarathy about classifying each problematic time period in terms of causes of the problematic time period. One would be motivated to do that to get further insight about the underlying causes of the problematic time period (see at least Col. 12, lines 27-34, of Parthasarathy).
Claim 37 is directed towards a method performed by the network management system of claim 27. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 38 is directed towards a method performed by the network management system of claim 28. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 39 is directed towards a method performed by the network management system of claim 29. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 M-F.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
May 28, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights