DETAILED ACTION
This application has been examined. Claims 1-2,4-9,11-16,18-23 are pending. Claims 3,10,17 are cancelled. Claims 21-23 are submitted as new claims.
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 .
Making Final
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
The claim amendments regarding -- ‘determining a STA is utilizing an alternate queue of the one or more alternate queues, and performing any one of (i) discarding, (ii) redirecting, or (iii) temporarily storing, traffic associated with the STA in the alternate queue before replacing the alternate queue with an L4S queue of the one or more L4S queues’ -- clearly change the literal scope of the independent and dependent claims and/or the range of equivalents for such claims. The said amendments alter the scope of the claims but do not overcome the disclosure by the prior art as shown below.
The Examiner is presenting new grounds for rejection as necessitated by the claim amendments and is thus making this action FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
Nadas disclosed (re. Claim 1) performing any one of (i) discarding, (ii) redirecting, or (iii) temporarily storing, traffic associated with the STA in the alternate queue before replacing the alternate queue with an L4S queue of the one or more L4S queues.(Nadas-Paragraph 13, determining, for each of the additional packets, whether to drop the additional packet based on the congestion threshold value of the queue and the packet value of the additional packet,Paragraph 41, Non-ECT packets having a PV 320 less than their corresponding CTV are dropped in the ingress pipeline (350a, 350b) before queueing)
While Nadas substantially disclosed the claimed invention Nadas does not disclose (re. Claim 1) wherein implementing the shallow queueing mechanism comprises determining a STA is utilizing an alternate queue of the one or more alternate queues and performing any one of (i) discarding, (ii) redirecting, or (iii) temporarily storing, traffic associated with the STA in the alternate queue before replacing the alternate queue with an L4S queue of the one or more L4S queues.
VerSteeg Paragraph 47 disclosed wherein network device 120 may be configured with delay-sensitive queue 130(A) being no longer than 100 milliseconds (ms), delay-insensitive nice queue 130(B) being 200 ms, and naughty queue 130(C) being 300 ms.
VerSteeg Paragraph 89 disclosed wherein If the received flow is not known, as determined at 604, then at 606, a determination can be made as to whether the flow asserts itself as being delay-sensitive. The received flow could potentially assert itself as delay-sensitive via session specific signaling, metadata, trust certificates, etc. If the flow asserts that it is a delay-sensitive flow, then it can be classified as delay-sensitive at 610. Packets of the flow are then assigned to and stored in a queue, at 614, according to the classification of the flow (e.g., delay-sensitive queue 130(A) for flows classified as delay-sensitive). Packets of the flow may continue to be stored in the assigned queue unless the flow's behavior during a period of congestion indicates the flow does not respond to delay signals. In this case, the flow may be reclassified and reassigned to another queue.
VerSteeg disclosed (re. Claim 1) wherein implementing the shallow queueing mechanism comprises determining a STA is utilizing an alternate queue of the one or more alternate queues,( VerSteeg-Paragraph 47,network device 120 may be configured with delay-sensitive queue 130(A) being no longer than 100 milliseconds (ms), delay-insensitive nice queue 130(B) being 200 ms, and naughty queue 130(C) being 300 ms ) and performing any one of (i) discarding, (ii) redirecting, or (iii) temporarily storing, traffic associated with the STA in the alternate queue before replacing the alternate queue with an L4S queue of the one or more L4S queues (VerSteeg Paragraph 89, Packets of the flow are then assigned to and stored in a queue, at 614, according to the classification of the flow (e.g., delay-sensitive queue 130(A) for flows classified as delay-sensitive). Packets of the flow may continue to be stored in the assigned queue unless the flow's behavior during a period of congestion indicates the flow does not respond to delay signals. In this case, the flow may be reclassified and reassigned to another queue, Paragraph 34, A flow may be promoted from a delay-insensitive nice queue to a delay-sensitive queue when the flow is determined to adapt to delay signals.)
Nadas and VerSteeg are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding queue mechanisms. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine VerSteeg into Nadas. The motivation for the said combination would have been to implement delay precedence and identify and segregate delay-insensitive flows (both nice and naughty) from delay-sensitive flows to minimize standing queues or bufferbloat, queue overflows, and packet losses, which could unfairly affect the flows adapting their loads based on delay.(VerSteeg-Paragraph 34)
Regarding Claim 21
Nadas-VerSteeg disclosed (re. Claim 21) determining a STA is utilizing an alternate queue of the one or more alternate queues for both an L4S flow and a non-L4S flow; ( VerSteeg-Paragraph 47,network device 120 may be configured with delay-sensitive queue 130(A) being no longer than 100 milliseconds (ms), delay-insensitive nice queue 130(B) being 200 ms, and naughty queue 130(C) being 300 ms ) and directing traffic from the L4S flow and the non-L4S flow to an L4S queue of the one or more L4S queues replacing the alternate queue.( VerSteeg-Paragraph 34, A flow may be promoted from a delay-insensitive nice queue to a delay-sensitive queue when the flow is determined to adapt to delay signals.)
Regarding Claim 22
Nadas-VerSteeg disclosed (re. Claim 22) determining the L4S queue has an amount of traffic queued over a threshold; and removing traffic of the non-L4S flow from the L4S queue until the amount of traffic queued is below the threshold. (Nadas-Paragraph 53, capacity threshold of the L4S queue 370a (C0) may be set to 90% of bottleneck capacity, whereas the capacity threshold of the non-L4S queue 370b (C.sub.1) may be set to 98% of bottleneck capacity.)
Regarding Claim 23
Nadas-VerSteeg disclosed (re. Claim 23) wherein the alternate queue of the one or more alternate queues comprises packets from video access category (Nadas-Paragraph 39, services may include cloud-rendered gaming, augmented reality, virtual reality, high definition or holographic video conferencing, and/or remote presence services) with discard eligibility. (Nadas-Paragraph 36, packets 300 being dropped, marked, and/or forwarded, depending on conditions (e.g., one or more values 310, 320, 330 in the packet, received packet sizes, and congestion)
Priority
This application claims benefits of priority from Provisional Application 63/582409 filed September 13, 2023.
The effective date of the claims described in this application is September 13, 2023.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4,8-9,11,15-16,21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadas (USPGPUB 2024/0056401) further in view of VerSteeg (USPGPUB 2016/0308769)
Regarding Claim 1
Nadas Paragraph 39 disclosed wherein Virtual Dual Queue-Core-Stateless Active Queue Management (VDQ-CSAQM) is implemented in P4. Data plane 220 isolates and processes L4S flows and classic flows according to respective criteria and using respective physical queues 370a, 370b. Packets 300 comprised in L4S flows are dropped, queued, marked, and/or transmitted based on a first CTV, whereas packets comprised in classic, non-L4S flows are dropped, queued, marked, and/or transmitted based on a second CTV.
Nadas Paragraph 44 disclosed wherein based on the L4S value 310 of the packet 300, the intermediate device 110 assigns the packet 300 to one of a plurality of packet queues 370a, 370b (block 410). The packet queues 370a, 370b comprise a first queue 370a for packets 300 that support L4S, and a second queue 370b for packets 300 that do not support L4S. The L4S queue 370a (i.e., the first queue) has priority over the non-L4S queue 370b (i.e., the second queue). Therefore, packets 300 comprised in scalable, L4S capable flows are assigned to the first queue (block 410, yes path), whereas packets 300 comprised in classic, non-L4S capable flows are assigned to the second queue (block 410, no path).
Nadas disclosed (re. Claim 1) a method comprising: determining a flow for a Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable Throughput (L4S) capable Station (STA) is L4S enabled; (Nadas-Paragraph 9, receiving a plurality of packets, each packet comprising a packet value. The packet value of each packet is one of a plurality of packet values that respectively identify a unique packet classification, Paragraph 32, packet 300 may comprise a Low Latency, Low Loss, Scalable throughput (L4S) value 310, a Packet Value (PV) 320, and/or an Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) value 330)
in response to determining the flow is L4S enabled, implementing a shallow queuing mechanism for queuing traffic (Nadas-Paragraph 39,Virtual Dual Queue-Core-Stateless Active Queue Management (VDQ-CSAQM) is implemented in P4.)
by replacing one or more alternate queues with one or more L4S queues, the shallow queuing mechanism comprising one or more classic queues and the one or more L4S queues; (Nadas-Paragraph 44,packets 300 comprised in scalable, L4S capable flows are assigned to the first queue (block 410, yes path), whereas packets 300 comprised in classic, non-L4S capable flows are assigned to the second queue (block 410, no path).)
and queuing L4S traffic of the flow in at least one of the one or more L4S queues.( Nadas-Paragraph 44,based on the L4S value 310 of the packet 300, the intermediate device 110 assigns the packet 300 to one of a plurality of packet queues 370a, 370b (block 410). The packet queues 370a, 370b comprise a first queue 370a for packets 300 that support L4S, and a second queue 370b for packets 300 that do not support L4S. The L4S queue 370a (i.e., the first queue) has priority over the non-L4S queue 370b (i.e., the second queue). Therefore, packets 300 comprised in scalable, L4S capable flows are assigned to the first queue (block 410, yes path), whereas packets 300 comprised in classic, non-L4S capable flows are assigned to the second queue (block 410, no path).)
While Nadas substantially disclosed the claimed invention Nadas does not disclose (re. Claim 1) wherein implementing the shallow queueing mechanism comprises determining a STA is utilizing an alternate queue of the one or more alternate queues and performing any one of (i) discarding, (ii) redirecting, or (iii) temporarily storing, traffic associated with the STA in the alternate queue before replacing the alternate queue with an L4S queue of the one or more L4S queues.
VerSteeg Paragraph 47 disclosed wherein network device 120 may be configured with delay-sensitive queue 130(A) being no longer than 100 milliseconds (ms), delay-insensitive nice queue 130(B) being 200 ms, and naughty queue 130(C) being 300 ms.
VerSteeg Paragraph 89 disclosed wherein If the received flow is not known, as determined at 604, then at 606, a determination can be made as to whether the flow asserts itself as being delay-sensitive. The received flow could potentially assert itself as delay-sensitive via session specific signaling, metadata, trust certificates, etc. If the flow asserts that it is a delay-sensitive flow, then it can be classified as delay-sensitive at 610. Packets of the flow are then assigned to and stored in a queue, at 614, according to the classification of the flow (e.g., delay-sensitive queue 130(A) for flows classified as delay-sensitive). Packets of the flow may continue to be stored in the assigned queue unless the flow's behavior during a period of congestion indicates the flow does not respond to delay signals. In this case, the flow may be reclassified and reassigned to another queue.
VerSteeg disclosed (re. Claim 1) wherein implementing the shallow queueing mechanism comprises determining a STA is utilizing an alternate queue of the one or more alternate queues,( VerSteeg-Paragraph 47,network device 120 may be configured with delay-sensitive queue 130(A) being no longer than 100 milliseconds (ms), delay-insensitive nice queue 130(B) being 200 ms, and naughty queue 130(C) being 300 ms ) and performing any one of (i) discarding, (ii) redirecting, or (iii) temporarily storing, traffic associated with the STA in the alternate queue before replacing the alternate queue with an L4S queue of the one or more L4S queues (VerSteeg Paragraph 89, Packets of the flow are then assigned to and stored in a queue, at 614, according to the classification of the flow (e.g., delay-sensitive queue 130(A) for flows classified as delay-sensitive). Packets of the flow may continue to be stored in the assigned queue unless the flow's behavior during a period of congestion indicates the flow does not respond to delay signals. In this case, the flow may be reclassified and reassigned to another queue, Paragraph 34, A flow may be promoted from a delay-insensitive nice queue to a delay-sensitive queue when the flow is determined to adapt to delay signals.)
Nadas and VerSteeg are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding queue mechanisms. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine VerSteeg into Nadas. The motivation for the said combination would have been to implement delay precedence and identify and segregate delay-insensitive flows (both nice and naughty) from delay-sensitive flows to minimize standing queues or bufferbloat, queue overflows, and packet losses, which could unfairly affect the flows adapting their loads based on delay.(VerSteeg-Paragraph 34)
Regarding Claim 8
Claim 8 (re. system) recites substantially similar limitations as Claim 1. Claim 8 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15
Claim 15 (re. non-transitory computer-readable medium) recites substantially similar limitations as Claim 1. Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2,9,16
Nadas-VerSteeg disclosed (re. Claim 2,9,16) detecting congestion for the flow; and marking the L4S traffic of the flow with a Congestion Experienced (CE) value.(Nadas-Paragraph 13, determining, for each of the additional packets, whether to drop the additional packet based on the congestion threshold value of the queue and the packet value of the additional packet, Paragraph 50, intermediate device 110 may determine whether or not to mark the packet 300 as having experienced congestion (e.g., by setting the ECN value 330 to a predefined congestion experienced value))
Regarding Claim 4,11
Nadas-VerSteeg disclosed (re. Claim 4,11) determining a STA is utilizing an alternate queue of the one or more alternate queues for both an L4S flow and a non-L4S flow; ( Nadas-Paragraph 44,based on the L4S value 310 of the packet 300, the intermediate device 110 assigns the packet 300 to one of a plurality of packet queues 370a, 370b (block 410).) directing traffic from the L4S flow and the non-L4S flow to an L4S queue of the one or more L4S queues replacing the alternate queue; ( Nadas-Paragraph 44,based on the L4S value 310 of the packet 300, the intermediate device 110 assigns the packet 300 to one of a plurality of packet queues 370a, 370b (block 410). The packet queues 370a, 370b comprise a first queue 370a for packets 300 that support L4S, and a second queue 370b for packets 300 that do not support L4S. The L4S queue 370a (i.e., the first queue) has priority over the non-L4S queue 370b (i.e., the second queue). Therefore, packets 300 comprised in scalable, L4S capable flows are assigned to the first queue (block 410, yes path), whereas packets 300 comprised in classic, non-L4S capable flows are assigned to the second queue (block 410, no path).) determining the L4S queue has an amount of traffic queued over a threshold; (Nadas-Paragraph 43, control plane 210 maintains the virtual queues of the control plane 210 using the arrivedBytes values and their history. Based on the length of the virtual queues, a probability is calculated for marking packets is determined ) and removing traffic of the non-L4S flow from the L4S queue until the amount of traffic queued is below the threshold.(Nadas-Paragraph 53, capacity threshold of the L4S queue 370a (C0) may be set to 90% of bottleneck capacity, whereas the capacity threshold of the non-L4S queue 370b (C.sub.1) may be set to 98% of bottleneck capacity.)
Regarding Claim 21
Nadas-VerSteeg disclosed (re. Claim 21) determining a STA is utilizing an alternate queue of the one or more alternate queues for both an L4S flow and a non-L4S flow; ( VerSteeg-Paragraph 47,network device 120 may be configured with delay-sensitive queue 130(A) being no longer than 100 milliseconds (ms), delay-insensitive nice queue 130(B) being 200 ms, and naughty queue 130(C) being 300 ms ) and directing traffic from the L4S flow and the non-L4S flow to an L4S queue of the one or more L4S queues replacing the alternate queue.( VerSteeg-Paragraph 34, A flow may be promoted from a delay-insensitive nice queue to a delay-sensitive queue when the flow is determined to adapt to delay signals.)
Regarding Claim 22
Nadas-VerSteeg disclosed (re. Claim 22) determining the L4S queue has an amount of traffic queued over a threshold; and removing traffic of the non-L4S flow from the L4S queue until the amount of traffic queued is below the threshold. (Nadas-Paragraph 53, capacity threshold of the L4S queue 370a (C0) may be set to 90% of bottleneck capacity, whereas the capacity threshold of the non-L4S queue 370b (C.sub.1) may be set to 98% of bottleneck capacity.)
Regarding Claim 23
Nadas-VerSteeg disclosed (re. Claim 23) wherein the alternate queue of the one or more alternate queues comprises packets from video access category (Nadas-Paragraph 39, services may include cloud-rendered gaming, augmented reality, virtual reality, high definition or holographic video conferencing, and/or remote presence services) with discard eligibility. (Nadas-Paragraph 36, packets 300 being dropped, marked, and/or forwarded, depending on conditions (e.g., one or more values 310, 320, 330 in the packet, received packet sizes, and congestion)
Claim(s) 5,12,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadas (USPGPUB 2024/0056401) further in view of VerSteeg (USPGPUB 2016/0308769) further in view of Salunkhe (USPGPUB 2025/0007847) further in view of Szymanski (USPGPUB 20190044920)
Regarding Claim 5,12,18
Nadas disclosed (re. Claim 5,12,18) a first Access Category (AC) classic queue, (Nadas-Paragraph 78,assigning each of the packets 300 to either an L4S queue 370a or a non-L4S queue 370b)
While Nadas-VerSteeg substantially disclosed the claimed invention Nadas-VerSteeg does not disclose (re. Claim 5,12,18) wherein the shallow queuing mechanism comprises a a second AC L4S queue, second AC classic queue, a third AC L4S queue, a third AC classic queue, and a fourth AC classic queue.
Salunkhe Figure 3A Paragraph 55 disclosed wherein packet classifiers 183, 184 may classify IP packets of the Low latency SF as having high priority and IP packets of the Classic SF as having normal priority.
Salunkhe disclosed (re. Claim 5,12,18) wherein the shallow queuing mechanism comprises a second AC L4S queue, second AC classic queue (Salunkhe-Figure 3A,Paragraph 55,packet classifiers 183, 184 may classify IP packets of the Low latency SF as having high priority and IP packets of the Classic SF as having normal priority.)
Nadas and Salunkhe are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding queue mechanisms. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Salunkhe into Nadas. The motivation for the said combination would have been to implement an LLD agent 406 which uses the attributes to identify the low latency traffic packets and process that packets in a manner such that the access network can recognize it as such and direct the low-latency packets to the appropriate queues (Salunkhe-Paragraph 59)
While Nadas-Salunkhe substantially disclosed the claimed invention Nadas-Salunkhe does not disclose (re. Claim 5,12,18) wherein the shallow queuing mechanism comprises a third AC L4S queue,a third AC classic queue, and a fourth AC classic queue.
Szymanski Paragraph 76 disclosed wherein the SDN control-plane can compute deterministic transmission-schedules (TX-schedules) associated with each output port K of each switch S traversed by the DTF. The first TX-schedule specifies which queue, selected from a set of N queues associated with the output port K of the switch, can transmit data on said output port K and its associated transmission line, for each time-slot of a scheduling frame with F time-slots.
Szymanski Figure 8A-8B,Paragraph 112 disclosed wherein the buffered switch 50 has many crosspoint queues 20. The queues 20 in FIG. 8A have effectively been moved into the switch 50.
Szymanski disclosed (re. Claim 5,12,18) wherein the shallow queuing mechanism comprises a third AC L4S queue, a third AC classic queue, and a fourth AC classic queue.( Szymanski-Figure 8A-8B,Paragraph 112,The buffered switch 50 has many crosspoint queues 20. (The queues 20 in FIG. 8A have effectively been moved into the switch 50.)
Nadas and Szymanski are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding queue mechanisms. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Szymanski into Nadas. The motivation for the said combination would have been to implement deterministic transmission schedules wherein schedules are low-jitter schedules, to minimize the queue size.(Szymanski-Paragraph 96)
Claim(s) 6-7,13-14,19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadas (USPGPUB 2024/0056401) further in view of VerSteeg (USPGPUB 2016/0308769) further in view of Szymanski (USPGPUB 20190044920)
Regarding Claim 6,13,19
Nadas disclosed (re. Claim 6,13,19) determining the L4S capable STA does not support L4S; and providing L4S support to enable the L4S capable STA to support L4S, (Nadas-Paragraph 44,based on the L4S value 310 of the packet 300, the intermediate device 110 assigns the packet 300 to one of a plurality of packet queues 370a, 370b (block 410)…packets 300 comprised in scalable, L4S capable flows are assigned to the first queue (block 410, yes path), whereas packets 300 comprised in classic, non-L4S capable flows are assigned to the second queue (block 410, no path).) wherein providing L4S support comprises marking L4S traffic of the flow to indicate L4S is supported. (Nadas-Paragraph 36, packets 300 being dropped, marked, and/or forwarded, depending on conditions (e.g., one or more values 310, 320, 330 in the packet, received packet sizes, and congestion)
While Nadas-VerSteeg substantially disclosed the claimed invention Nadas-VerSteeg does not disclose (re. Claim 6,13,19) proxy L4S support.
Szymanski disclosed (re. Claim 6,13,19) proxy L4S support.( Szymanski-Paragraph 54,Paragraph 76, the SDN control-plane can compute deterministic transmission-schedules (TX-schedules) associated with each output port K of each switch S traversed by the DTF.)
Nadas and Szymanski are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding queue mechanisms. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Szymanski into Nadas. The motivation for the said combination would have been to implement deterministic transmission schedules wherein schedules are low-jitter schedules, to minimize the queue size.(Szymanski-Paragraph 96)
Regarding Claim 7,14,20
Nadas-Szymanski disclosed (re. Claim 7,14,20) providing proxy L4S support to enable the L4S capable STA to support L4S, ( Szymanski-Paragraph 54,Paragraph 76, the SDN control-plane can compute deterministic transmission-schedules (TX-schedules) associated with each output port K of each switch S traversed by the DTF.) wherein providing proxy L4S support comprises: determining the flow has congestion; (Nadas-Paragraph 37, determine congestion threshold values (CTVs) that will be used by the data plane 220 for dropping, marking, and/or forwarding one or more packets 300) and causing any one of (i) the L4S capable STA, (ii) an endpoint of the flow, or (iii) both (i) and (ii), to reduce a Transmit (TX) rate.(Nadas-Paragraph 53, Delay targets (VQTarget.sub.0, VQTarget.sub.1) for the respective virtual queues may also be initialized to appropriate values. For example, a 1 ms delay target may be set for VQTarget.sub.1, whereas a 20 ms delay target may be set for VQTarget.sub.0 )
Conclusion
Examiner’s Note: In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GREG C BENGZON whose telephone number is (571)272-3944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Follansbee can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREG C BENGZON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights